

























































































COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 









THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 









The God of Our 
F athers 




New York Chicago 

Fleming H. Revell Company 

London and Edinburgh 



Copyright, 1923, by 

FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY 


.O 


©Cl A711233 


New York: 158 Fifth Avenue 
Chicago: 17 North Wabash Ave. 
London: 21 Paternoster Square 
Edinburgh: 75 Princes Street 


JUL 19 1923 


Preface 


M Y purpose in writing this book is to present 
in popular language some of the arguments 
usually advanced for the existence of God. 
I do not write for the learned, who, if they desire, 
may consult the great works written on this the great¬ 
est of all subjects. I address myself to the average 
man or woman, whose interests in the matter are no 
less than those of the scholar. 

While I do not expect technical knowledge in the 
reader, I do hope that he will have a desire to know, 
and a willingness to exercise his mental faculties. If 
he does not care about the subject, this book is not for 
him; if he be not willing to strive towards an under¬ 
standing of the matter, I can not help him; if he 
would prefer not to know God, he will not, of course, 
bother with what I have to say. 

Believing as I do that no one can be convinced 
against his will, I have no hope of influencing those 
who are atheists by profession; or those who think 
that atheism and enlightenment walk hand-in-hand. 
Pride of intellect, or attachment to opinion regardless 
of its truth, has a blinding influence which is not eas¬ 
ily counteracted. Similarly, a desire to live one’s life 
in one’s own way, without fear of having to render an 
account, has made many a mind impervious to the 
light. A belief in God means restraint, and restraint 
is not always acceptable. 


5 


6 


PREFACE 


A college or university campus often gives oppor¬ 
tunity for propagating atheism. There seems to be a 
degree of daring about it that fascinates the minds of 
the young. To think for one’s self and to decide one’s 
own course of action appear splendid to those who 
have not learned the true meaning of law. Incorrect 
views of the supreme Law-giver aid the process. 

To help those who, in any walk of life, are striving 
to stay the dreadful tendency of the age is my pur¬ 
pose. I avoid to the best of my ability all technical 
language, and endeavour to write for those who love 
plain speaking. 

I would, however, utter the admonition that, the 
question does not depend upon my presentation of it. 
Even though it should appear that some, or all, of my 
arguments are inconclusive, the Great First Cause 
would still exist and be demonstrable. 

I would ask the reader to come to a consideration 
of the matter with an open mind, and with an earnest¬ 
ness in some measure worthy of the subject. For, 
while conviction is especially the work of the intellect, 
it is attained only by the whole man. Moral qualities 
play an important part in religious belief; indeed, so 
important a part, that it is idle to reason with those 
who are lacking in them. 

To friends of the cause I would say: should you 
find my presentation of the subject inadequate, go to 
the masters, of whom there are many. I have no 
hope of writing an exhaustive work, and shall be 
satisfied if I can but aid even a few towards accept¬ 
ing a Being whose existence is to me as real as 
my own. 


PREFACE 


7 


No believer in God need fear that his sensibilities 
will be hurt by what I have to say. There is not in 
this little book a word of controversy with any Chris¬ 
tian body. I do not once mention or refer to any 
denomination or sect. 

Before coming to the arguments proper I deal with 
such questions as are related to my subject, or enter 
into the consideration of it. 

My first intention was to give this book as title 
“ The Unknown God ”; a name taken from an altar 
St. Paul found in Athens (Acts xvii. 23). I hoped 
in this way to emphasize my conviction that most, if 
not all, honest doubt and denial come from a wrong 
understanding of the nature and attributes of God. 
It is of small value to know that He is, if we do not 
also know what He is. 

I trust these preliminaries will help the reader to 
understand the methods adopted in this little book. 

H. P. S. 


/ 




Contents 


I. Isms That Deny of Destroy. 11 

Agnosticism — Atheism — Dualism — 
Polytheism — Pantheism — Emanation- 
ism—A World-Soul. 

II. Our View. 20 


Monotheism — A Personal God — The 
Proper Attitude Towards God. 

III. Questions That Aeeect the Subject.. 25 

There Must Be a Cause — Chance— 
Eternity—The Infinite. 

IV. Other Reflections . 31 

Denial Does Not Alter the Facts—How 
Friends May Hurt the Cause—Fashion 
in Faith—We Need God—A Standard 
is Necessary. 

V. Atheism's Devastation . 45 

No God, No Christianity—No God, No 
Future Life—No God, No Miracle— 

No God, No Free Will—Family Af¬ 
fection Unexplained — No God, No 
Prayer. No God, No Government. 

VI. Further Destruction . 61 

Despair—The Moral Law Goes—Moral 
Law Without Sanction—Sin is Not Al¬ 
ways Punished Here—Can Virtue Be 
Its Own Reward ? 


9 







10 


CONTENTS 


VII. About Matter .. . 74 

Whence Is It?—Matter in Time and 
Space. 

VIII. Devious Ways or “ Science” . 81 

Attitude of Some Scientists—The Po¬ 
tency Claimed for Evolution. 

IX. Prooes or God's Existence . 88 


The First Cause—A Void Remains 
Void, Unless—Motion and a First 
Mover — God and Organism — Earth 
Testifies to Design—God, the Designer 
—Earth’s Beauty Witnesses to God— 
Conscience Witnesses to God—General 
Acceptance of the Belief. 

X. DiRRicueties ... 121 

Some Born of Our Own Weaknesses— 
How Harmonize Existing Evil with 
God’s Existence—Eternal Punishment 
—The Sufferings of Animals. 


XI. Theism Versus Atheism . 140 

XII. Does Theism Answer? . 147 

XIII. What Is God? . 150 


XIV. Happiness In Believing 


154 










I 


ISMS THAT DENY OR DESTROY 

AGNOSTICISM 

A WORD derived from the Greek negative A 
and the Greek term for knowing. It signifies 
“ not knowing,” and was coined by Professor 
Huxley to express his own attitude. It was likely 
suggested by the name given to an early sect that 
pretended to special knowledge, the Gnostics. Ag¬ 
nosticism goes to the other extreme. 

The position of the agnostic is considered humble, 
because he professes ignorance. It is also considered 
strong, because he has nothing to defend. But one 
may reasonably ask if its humility be not masked 
pride. The agnostic seems, at least sometimes, to say 
to others: “You are credulous. Insufficient argu¬ 
ments satisfy you. I refuse to be deceived. My mind 
is more exacting.” 

If the agnostic position be strong, it is because it is 
purely negative, in other words, not a position at all. 
He says, “ I don’t know ”—a statement that is hard to 
refute. For it simply expresses one’s own condition, 
of which each one must be the best judge. 

Yet, perhaps, the agnostic attitude is the least 
logical of all. For, while the atheist sweeps away 
every power above himself, the agnostic is still con¬ 
fronted with a possibility that is very disturbing. 


11 


12 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


There may be a God, and if there be, we must all 
meet Him one day. And, perhaps, among the ques¬ 
tions He will ask in that day will be this: “ Since you 
doubted, why did you not settle the doubt? Did you 
do your best ? Did you consult those who might help 
you to solve the problem? Surely, it was important 
enough to demand your best attention.” 

The question is often raised as to whether or not 
agnosticism is a pose, with an affectation of superior 
mentality. Some even think that not infrequently it 
may be a way of escaping from a difficult position. 
If there be a God, He is a Lawgiver and a Judge. It 
sometimes happens that it is pleasanter to forget all 
about Him. Belief in Him does so interfere with 
one’s liberty! The wish in such matters is often as 
Shakespeare would say, “ Father to the thought.” 
Hence, the neutral position which the agnostic as¬ 
sumes may not be as ingenuous as he would have us 
believe. 


ATHEISM 

The term is derived from two Greek words, one 
(a) negative, the other (theos) signifying God. It is, 
therefore, a system of thought which denies the exist¬ 
ence of God. In popular language the word infidelity 
is often used for atheism. But this is inexact. Infi¬ 
delity, properly speaking, means the absence of faith, 
which is the acceptance of a truth on authority. But 
we can know, and many do accept, the existence of 
God from reason alone. Hence, one may be an infidel 
without being an atheist. Some of the great pagans 
were, through the exercise of their own faculties, con- 


ISMS THAT DENY OR DESTROY 


13 


vinced of God’s existence. St. Paul has something to 
say upon the matter in the first chapter of his Epistle 
to the Romans, which I refer to as an historical docu¬ 
ment. Those who accept the existence of God with¬ 
out believing in divine revelation are called Deists, 
from Deus, the Latin name of God. 

Atheists not only reject divine revelation but deny 
that there is any God to give a revelation. They 
would not only refuse what faith teaches, but, also, 
what great minds have reached through the exercise 
of natural reason in reference to God’s existence. 
Atheism, properly so called, is sure that God does 
not exist. 

Whether there are any atheists in this positive 
sense is gravely doubted by many. The present 
writer is not prepared to affirm or deny. He wishes, 
however, to record that he once saw a declared atheist 
get down on his knees, in a moment of great affliction, 
and ask his friends to pray with him and for him. 
But we are not justified in concluding from this and 
similar occurrences that there are no out-and-out 
atheists. However, the question is merely a curious 
one and is not gravely important. It does not con¬ 
cern our discussion much whether there are positive 
atheists or not. 

However, when we find a man—and we often find 
him—dwelling constantly on possible and impossible 
objections to the existence of a Deity; when we find 
him refusing to give any consideration to arguments 
for such an existence, we are forced to the conviction 
that such a one is profoundly interested in eliminating 
God from his own thoughts. What prompts him to 


14 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


do this is a question. Some will say that he does so 
that he may live the life of a libertine; others may 
regard him as naturally perverse. It must be ad¬ 
mitted that there is no reasonable explanation of the 
attitude. 

Personally, I have the greatest sympathy for the 
man who cannot accept God. Existence must be very 
bleak to him, especially as he draws towards the 
evening of life. The hopes he may have had in his 
youth have dwindled and the future is dark, indeed. 
The grave will soon open to receive him, and then 
what? Is it any wonder such a one asks why there 
should be such a thing as human life ? 

While our hearts go out to this sad condition, we 
have not a thought of sympathy with the one who is 
trying to get rid of the idea of God; who is constantly 
battling against the possibility of a Judge Who will 
one day pass upon our actions, and whose decision 
will be final. 

Yet, perhaps our pity should be extended more 
plentifully to the latter. For, we who believe in a 
beneficent God can readily see Him extending mercy 
to the one who could not accept Him, while He exe¬ 
cutes justice upon those who wilfully closed their eyes 
to the light. 


dualism 

Dualism, from a Latin word (duo) signifying two, 
professes a belief in two principles or deities, one 
good and the other bad. Like almost all religions, 
and most heresies, it comes out of the East, where it 
still exercises considerable influence. 


ISMS THAT DENY OR DESTROY 


15 


It entered Europe as Manicheism in the fourth 
century of the Christian era. Maintaining that the 
human body was the work of the Evil principle, the 
Manicheans were opposed to the propagation of the 
race, hence, to marriage. 

Dualism was also the doctrine of Cathari in the 
eleventh century and of the Albigenses in the twelfth. 
It manifested itself from time to time in other 
sectaries. 

Dike most other systems, it was differently ex¬ 
plained at different times and by different teachers. 
While the doctrine made the two principles eternal 
and independent, yet it was occasionally so modified 
as to make the Evil principle the weaker. 

Manicheism has, of course, nothing in common 
with the Jewish and Christian teaching concerning 
the Evil Spirit, or Devil. He is always represented, 
not as a principle, but as a creature—therefore, 
neither eternal nor independent. 

To admit two independent principles would, of 
course, be to destroy the supremacy of either. In the 
supposition there would be no supreme being at all. 
Each would limit the other. 

Even to concede that the evil principle, though in¬ 
ferior, has a certain field in which it is independent 
would be to destroy the supremacy of God, and there¬ 
fore to destroy our view of Him. We are not con¬ 
cerned in a Deity that is not absolute. 

It will not do to argue that, according to Jewish 
and Christian teaching, Satan enjoys a certain degree 
of absolute jurisdiction, for neither Jew nor Chris¬ 
tian makes any such admission. The present writer 


16 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


believes himself orthodox in holding that Satan 
has no power in the spiritual affairs of men, be¬ 
yond that which men, in the exercise of their free 
will, concede him. He is permitted by the Creator 
to tempt and annoy us, but he wins no victory with¬ 
out our consent. Man alone defies God, but his 
defiance is of short duration. He must soon either 
return to obedience, or take the consequences of his 
conduct. 

In thus limiting Satan’s power I am not unmindful 
of the history of Job, or of others who have suffered 
materially from the assaults of the Evil One. Such 
things are but exceptional and are permitted for a 
purpose. They do not show that an iota of inde¬ 
pendent power belongs to Satan. 

POLYTHEISM 

The system, as the two Greek words (polus and 
theos) from which the name is derived imply, is a 
belief in many gods. As the nations departed from 
the true idea of God, they began to create their own 
gods. Cities had gods to look after local affairs. It 
was the duty of these divinities to repay their wor¬ 
shipers by some form of service; as, for instance, by 
sending rain or sunshine when needed, or by coming 
to the aid of their followers in time of war, etc. The 
gods were not usually asked to pass upon the cause 
in whose assistance they were invoked. Like a cer¬ 
tain class of politicians, they were expected to stand 
by their friends, regardless of the righteousness of 
the conflict. 

Above these local or national gods, peoples usually 


ISMS THAT DENY OR DESTROY 17 


acknowledged, though they may not have always wor¬ 
shipped, a superior, or even a supreme deity. 

While each nation aimed to create its own gods, 
yet often we find the same deity under different names 
in different countries. Zeus of the Greeks was prob¬ 
ably the Roman Jupiter, and the Egyptian Ammon. 

PANTHEISM 

The term is derived from two Greek words which 
mean All-God, and the accepted meaning remains true 
to the derivation. All things are God, and God is all 
things. God is neither apart from nor above the 
Universe, but is one with it. 

Oneness is all-pervading. Things are united by 
bonds that cannot be broken. All are one and this 
one is God. The armies that strive to annihilate one 
another, hostile races, the conqueror and the van¬ 
quished, the hunter and the hunted, the destroyer and 
the destroyed, all are one. So are earth, air, and 
water, mind and matter, living things and dead 
things. 

Various explanations of the pantheistic theory have 
been given. But it would seem that the simpler and 
broader the exposition the better. If God be all and 
all be God, let us leave it at that. 

It is rather amusing to think of the insignificant 
creature that man is, discussing the great All of which 
he is such an infinitesimal fraction. But men have 
engaged in such speculation from the beginning. It 
has had a special fascination for the Oriental mind. 
To unify all in a grand conception makes such an 
appeal to the imagination! It has had its attraction 


18 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


for every age and every clime. Spinoza and Giordano 
Bruno are numbered among its protagonists. 

Pantheism does away with sin, for God can do no 
wrong, and there is nothing but He. Especially, He 
cannot offend Himself. Further, He is not free, but 
moves along of necessity with the all which He is. 
Having no freedom. He is not a moral being. For 
the All-one there is no such thing as right or wrong, 
truth or falsehood. 

Of course, neither is there any such thing as relig¬ 
ion. How could the All-one be bound by obligation 
to Itself? How could It fall down in worship of 
Itself ? It cannot put Itself under obligation, nor can 
It so put any part of Itself. We (pardon the as¬ 
sumption) are free from obligation, because we are 
part of the Great All, but not free from compulsion. 
We can no more separate ourselves from the All-God 
than a clod of earth can part company from our 
sphere as it travels through space. We are tied to It, 
not by moral obligation, but by necessity. 

In the pantheistic view, God is no more than the 
universe to which He is inseparably united. Neither 
is He unchangeable, but is subject to all the vicissi¬ 
tudes that manifest themselves in matter and in mind. 
It may, of course, be said that these changes are 
imaginary. But how can we who are part of the All- 
God, be guilty of false imaginings? Since the One 
Being, which alone exists, is operating in us we can 
make no mistakes; neither can we be guilty of any 
offense. We live the life of the All-God. Hence, 
we can do no wrong, and when we die, no matter 
how we may have lived, we remain with the One 


ISMS THAT DENY OR DESTROY 


19 


Great All from which we have never been separated. 
This is pantheism. 

Some there are who would strive to limit or modify 
the ism. But it seems ridiculous to accept the theory 
which is so grandiose, and then try to mutilate it. It 
is especially amusing, as already said, to find man, so 
insignificant a part of the All-God, imposing his views 
upon the Mighty Whole. 

EMANATIONISM 

This system, variously interpreted, effects the uni¬ 
verse primarily. It would hold that whatever is has 
come from an Eternal Being; not through the free 
act of Creation, but through a natural and necessary 
“ flowing from.” Material things are farthest re¬ 
moved from the great Eternal source; hence they 
belong to the lowest order. 

A WORIyD-SOUIy 

This is a sort of spiritual Emanation from the 
Universal Intelligence, which in turn emanates from 
God. The World-Soul works through an emanation 
which is called Nature, and which gives life and 
energy to Material things. 

There are many kindred speculations, usually of 
oriental origin, which today have interest merely for 
the student of such matters. 


II 


OUR VIEW 

MONOTHEISM 

T HE term is derived from two Greek words 
monos, only, and theos, God, only one God. 
Monotheism recognizes one God, who is apart 
from, and above, the universe of created things; but 
yet actively operating in it. It is, therefore, different 
from all the other “ isms.” 

The Jews were monotheists. They were kept apart 
from the other nations in order that the idea of only 
one God might be preserved intact. All Christians 
are monotheists. The fact that a majority of them 
accept a trinity of persons in the God-head does not 
change the situation. 

Mohammedanism is also strictly monotheistic. 
Allah of Islam is the Jehovah of Israel. Many of 
the nations have been monotheistic in the sense that, 
while believing in many gods, they regarded one as 
supreme. 


a personae god 

When I speak of God, I mean a personal God—one 
Who thinks and wills, One Who says, “ I know,” “ I 
love,” “ I hate,” “ I reward,” “ I punish,” “ I am 
obeyed or disobeyed.” 

The obiection to a personal God arises usually from 


20 



OUR VIEW 


21 


a misunderstanding of the word person. Many think 
that a person must be a human being in some form. 
Hence, when you talk to them of a personal God they 
immediately have visions of a huge man, an immeas¬ 
urable figure, with limbs extending from end to end 
mightily. They have what is called the anthropo¬ 
morphic idea of God. 

But the word person does not necessarily imply the 
human form, great or small. Indeed, it does not 
imply form at all. An angel, though a pure spirit, 
hence without figure or outline, is a person. Human 
beings are persons, but not because of their human 
forms. What, then constitutes a person? 

A person is a complete intelligent being. A being 
that can say “ I.” The human soul is not a person, 
but is part of a person—hence not complete. It is the 
human being, not the soul, that says “ I.” The lower 
animals are not persons, for they are not intelligent. 
They cannot say “ I ”—“ I did it,” “ I suffered it,” 
“ I am responsible.” 

God is a complete intelligent being. He differs 
from other persons in His being infinite in knowl¬ 
edge, in power, in goodness, etc. He has all per¬ 
fections in an infinite degree. Hence, when we speak 
of God we do not try to visualize a measureless 
human being: we think of a spirit, complete in itself, 
individual, intelligent, infinite—nothing less than this 
is God. 

To make a power, no matter how great, God, is to 
deify blind force, and to banish justice and all moral¬ 
ity from the earth. A power does not ask us to love 
or serve it; it is not displeased when we hate it. We 


22 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


may not, perhaps, resist it; but any form of schem¬ 
ing that takes us out of its way is good; the most 
exalted altruism, if it put us in its path, is foolish. 
The experimenter dies in making his experiments; the 
owner of the motor is ditched by it. Force crushes 
good and bad alike. 

Hence, a God that is a mere power must be deaf to 
the claims of justice, devotion, charity, gratitude. He 
knows no distinction between friend and foe. The 
moral world does not exist for him, nor he for the 
moral world. Only a personal God can have any 
claim upon us, upon our love, gratitude, or service. 
A non-personal God is no God at all. Paganism has 
held many strange and absurd ideas of God, but it 
never descended to the utterly impersonal view of 
Him. 

The cause, then, that I plead is that of a God, per¬ 
sonal, individual, intelligent; the Creator of the Uni¬ 
verse, its conscious Ruler, the Source of the moral 
order. 

The trouble with most people is their desire to 
visualize everything. If they cannot see a figure the 
thing has no meaning for them. Yet, we do not see 
our thoughts, nor do we see the thinking faculty. 
Real as the will is, we can visualize neither it nor its 
acts. Spiritual things are without outline, therefore 
cannot be imaged. Do not try to visualize God, Who, 
having no body, is without form or figure; yet is 
nevertheless real. 

THE PROPER ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD 

Most people accept the existence of God on faith. 


OUR VIEW 


23 


The only strictly logical way, however, is by reason. 
We must know that there is a God before we can be 
called upon to accept His word. In stern logic, then, 
the conviction that He exists precedes our other atti¬ 
tudes towards Him. 

The evidences of His existence are sufficient, and 
more than sufficient, to satisfy the demands of the 
most exacting mind; while the fact of His existence 
is so important that no one can afford to be indiffer¬ 
ent to it. Since He exists, all things are His; all are 
from Him; all must in one way or another return to 
Him. We never can get beyond the limits of His 
jurisdiction. Not for a moment can we be inde¬ 
pendent of Him. 

Sometimes men speak as though we were free to 
accept or refuse His dominion. Yet, no one ever 
admits that a child is free to acknowledge or reject its 
parents. The parents are in position by right, and the 
child’s refusal (if such a thing were possible) would 
not weaken their authority. 

Nor is any one ever told that he may refuse al¬ 
legiance to his country. It is never even dreamed of 
that there is liberty of choice in the matter. Each 
government stands upon its rights and proceeds to 
reduce to submission those who question its authority. 

Now, if there is but one possible attitude towards 
parents, and one possible attitude towards country, 
how happens it that men allow the young to decide 
for themselves whether they shall accept the august 
Ruler of the universe or not? If there be no choice in 
minor matters, how can there possibly be room for 
hesitancy in a relationship that immeasurably tran- 


2 4f 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


scends all others? Parents and country come from 
God; but while we may not dispute their jurisdiction 
we are at liberty to question His! This is the fearful 
position that foolish men take. 

None can properly proclaim the existence of God 
but those who regard the rejection of Him as supreme 
folly or utter wickedness—in either case the greatest 
of all evils. To regard Him as appealing to us with 
anything less than absolute right is to utterly fall 
below the demands of the situation. His claim upon 
us surpasses ten thousand fold all other claims. We 
reject Him at our peril. 


Ill 


QUESTIONS THAT AFFECT THE SUBJECT 
there must be a CAUSE 

E VERY existing thing must have a cause for its 
existence, and the cause must be equal to the 
work of producing or causing it. This is the 
principle of causality, which is fundamental in the 
process of knowing. 

It is said that no one can prove the principle, but 
every one accepts it; save a few who wish to talk 
philosophically. But if you deny it, all science, all 
knowledge, all progress goes with your denial. If it 
be not true then you can have murder without a 
murderer, a collision with nothing to collide, growth 
without anything to feed on; you can have war with¬ 
out anyone making it, bread without material. In¬ 
deed you may have all the absurdities and impossi¬ 
bilities in great abundance. 

When the weather man foretells the weather, he 
pays tribute to the principle of causality. When the 
scientist investigates some new phenomenon, when 
the state sends its officers to discover the author of 
some crime, when one lights a fire on a winter’s day, 
all are under the influence of the principle of causal¬ 
ity. You can neither think nor act without a recog¬ 
nition of its position. 

If you reject the principle of causality, you can- 

25 



26 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


not tell what is going to happen at any moment; 
chaos would reign and ordered existence would be 
impossible. 

But, you may say, if everything must have a cause, 
what of God? Is there something back of Him? We 
answer: He is His own cause, having in Himself the 
reason of His own being. He is an eternal and neces¬ 
sary Being. His nature is to exist. 

If this seems puzzling to you, remember that there 
is no means of getting away from it. If there were 
no necessary being there never would be any being. 
This will appear later on in our discussion. 

CHANCE 

There is no such agency as chance; hence it pro¬ 
duces nothing. It cannot make a sod of earth; it 
could not make the world; for the reason that as a 
maker or a doer of things it has no existence. 

You chance to meet a friend at a railroad station. 
Did chance bring either of you to the place? Cer¬ 
tainly not. Each of you planned your trip, and took 
the necessary means of arriving at the particular time. 
If you were to wait until chance should lift you out 
of your home and transport you to the railroad depot 
you would stay at home a long while. The only 
chance in the circumstances arises from the fact that 
you had not planned to meet your friend there. 

When chance is adverse we, popularly, call it acci¬ 
dent. Two motor cars meet at a certain corner and 
an accident happens. Did chance cause the collision ? 
No. Each driver had planned to be at the precise 
spot at the precise time, and consumed enough gas to 


QUESTIONS THAT AFFECT SUBJECT 27 


bring him to it. Of course, neither knew that he 
would encounter the other. Hence the accident, in 
which the cars smashed into one another and did dam¬ 
age. The speed and weight of the machines did the 
damage. They were the agencies. The gambler plays 
a game of chance. The wheel he turns stops at a 
certain number, and the one who has purchased that 
number wins. But the wheel stops where it must 
stop, because the force exercised no longer overcomes 
the resistance. It cannot go any farther, and it could 
not stop before. So with the card deal and the throw 
of the dice. The only chance in any one of these 
situations comes from the fact that the precise result 
was not foreseen, and, therefore, could not have been 
intended. 


ETERNITY 

It is difficult to make this subject clear. Eternity 
is the perfect and simultaneous possession of intermi¬ 
nable life. It has neither beginning, nor end, nor suc¬ 
cession ; neither past nor present, but is a continuous 
now. God alone, according to our Christian teaching, 
is eternal. He is interminable, perfect life. His own 
definition of Himself is “ I am who am.” 

But, in the language of the day, there is an eternity 
which is not of this kind. It is one which has seen, 
according to the evolutionist, the development of the 
world through untold years. It is endless, but not 
simultaneous. It is a series, a succession of years or 
periods, that stretches back without limit. There, in 
the fathomless depths of an endlessly remote past, 
was the something from which the present universe 


28 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


came. No imagination can count the years that sepa¬ 
rate that beginning from the present time. When the 
evolutionist of today talks of billions of years he 
scarcely taps the supply of eons at his disposal. 

Here we have two ideas of eternity, the one coming 
down to us from the early centuries of our era, the 
other a modern view, the view of materialism. 

The: infinite 

The word is derived from two Latin words (in and 
finis) and signifies without limit or boundary, there¬ 
fore, unlimited. Limits and boundaries fix a line 
beyond which a thing may not go. In matters infinite 
there is no such line. 

Many things are called infinite simply because they 
are huge, or because we are unable to measure them. 
In popular language we have such expressions as 
infinite pains, infinite patience. Such expressions 
imply, at most, that no effort has been spared to ac¬ 
complish the result. But, the use of the word “ infi¬ 
nite ” in such cases is wholly inaccurate. 

Properly speaking, the word “ infinite ” must be 
taken in its simplest meaning, which is actually end¬ 
less or unlimited; not merely that we can assign no 
limit to it, but that there is none to be assigned. Were 
supreme intelligence to pass on the matter it would 
use the word infinite in describing it. 

There is an infinity improperly so-called, which 
simply means the indeterminate. We can set no limit 
to the number of times abstract figures may be in¬ 
creased. You can always add one or two or ten to 
any number. There is no number, no matter how 


QUESTIONS THAT AFFECT SUBJECT 29 


large, that is not increasable indefinitely. But, is it 
ever infinite actually? Never, for whenever you 
pause, you can measure it, and can begin once more 
to increase it. So, that which is merely infinite po¬ 
tentially is never actually infinite. 

The question is often asked: how can finite minds 
know the infinite? They cannot, of course, know it 
as it is. But they can know it to the extent of under¬ 
standing that it is unlimited. For instance, we know 
that certain individuals are powerful, some more pow¬ 
erful, some, we say, are most powerful. The latter 
exceed all others. Yet, we know there is a limit to the 
strongest. Suppose we remove that limit and say, 
there is nothing in any sphere of activity that such a 
one cannot do. Of course, this we cannot say of any 
created being. But if we could, we would simply say 
his power is unlimited. We would not comprehend 
the power that is unlimited, but we would understand 
that no limit is set to it. This is certainly some un¬ 
derstanding, though incomplete, of the infinite. 

A thing may be infinite in one phase and only one. 
Christians, for instance, usually believe that the 
human soul will not die. They therefore give it an 
unlimited future existence. But while they give it 
unlimited future existence, no one holds that it is 
unlimited in power, or in any other form of greatness. 
In the Christian view, there is but one Being infinite 
in all things, power, eternity, goodness, holiness, etc. 
In this Being there can be no change, for change im¬ 
plies an increase or decrease in at least one perfection. 
But neither can happen in this One Who is absolutely 
perfect Being. For absolute perfection cannot be im- 


30 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


proved upon, nor can it be diminished without being 
rendered less than absolutely perfect. 

When people speak of an infinite number, they 
speak inaccurately. For we can always add to any 
number. Hence, were any number infinite, we could 
easily make it more than infinite. This would of 
course be absurd. Also, we can deduct one from it 
and destroy its infinitude, which is again absurd. In¬ 
finity, then, implies undivided unity, not multiplicity. 




IV 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 

DENIM, DOES NOT AI/TER THE FACTS 

T HE existence of God is a question of fact. 
Our acceptance of Him would not bring Him 
into being; nor could our denial of Him put 
Him out. His existence or non-existence is therefore 
entirely independent of what we think. The con¬ 
viction of the whole world, for or against, would not 
change the facts, be what they may, one iota. If 
there be no God, the believer who dies in utter faith 
in His existence will not wake to discover that he has 
been deceived; and, if there be a God, unbelief will 
not enable the unbelievers to escape the judgment. 
Not, indeed, that any one will be punished for what 
he could not help; but, if the one who denied God 
through life, should at the end encounter the great 
Judge, he will scarcely feel comfortable. 

In this respect believers will have a decided ad¬ 
vantage. For if it should turn out in the end that 
there is no God, no harm is done. But if it should 
finally appear that, despite the denial of some, the Fact 
of Facts, the Being of Beings, God, exists, those who 
have clung to Him during life may indeed rejoice. 

One may say that if it should finally appear that 
there is no Deity, those who held to the conviction 
must feel humiliated at the thought of a life-long 


31 


32 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


superstition. The answer is very easy: If there be 
no God, there is no future life. Hence, the deceived 
ones will never learn of their deception. And if they 
should, they will have the satisfaction not only of 
having acted according to conviction, but of having 
believed as the mass of mankind believed. Further, 
they will have the merit of having accepted all the 
self-restraint and sacrifice which belief in God 
demands. 

Should it be urged that believers suffer during life 
from foolish fears, subject themselves to laws that 
have no Lawgiver, and, in general, lead a timid and 
abject life, I do not think it would be difficult to give 
an adequate reply. I am quite certain, having in my 
time known a little of both sides, that misgivings and 
fears are far more likely to be found with the atheist, 
though he may often show himself a braggart, than 
with the earnest believer. Humility may be discov¬ 
ered in the latter, but humility is not bad; nor does it 
make any one contemptible. On the other hand, if 
there exist contentment and happiness in this world 
they belong almost exclusively to pious believers. I, 
therefore, conclude that, taking all in all, the believer, 
whether mistaken or not, has the better part, even in 
this life. Do not infer from this that I am indifferent 
to the truth, or that I would urge superstition as a 
means to happiness. It is the truth that makes us 
free. But if there be a doubt which cannot be solved, 
it is better to lean towards acceptance of the Deity— 
better for this life, and assuredly safer for the next. 
Dear reader, for your own sake weigh well this 
thought. 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


33 


how friends may hurt the cause 

The cause of God, like other causes, often suffers 
from its friends. Well-meaning people have been 
known to give strange opinions on the divine policy. 
Sometimes God is represented as losing His temper, 
after the human fashion; sometimes as thirsting for 
revenge. He is made to wreak vengeance upon weak 
and ignorant people who scarcely know their right 
hand from their left. In this way an excuse is given 
to persons who are already disposed to abandon belief 
in Him. These latter, instead of investigating or in¬ 
quiring, assume that the picture given them is a true 
representation of the divine policy, and accordingly 
abandon their Creator. 

The well-meaning people referred to tell us, for in¬ 
stance, that the sufferings we are called upon to en¬ 
dure in this life come from our heavenly Father. 
This is no doubt often said with the pious purpose of 
making us patient under trial. Yet there is not a 
particle of evidence that our sufferings generally come 
from God. That He permits them is true; and it is 
also true that He demands of us patience under all 
circumstances. But so should our best friends in this 
life. Impatience certainly helps no one. 

God does not punish the innocent, and when hard¬ 
ship comes to them from other sources, He sustains 
them, if they are willing to be sustained, and turns 
even their pains into an opportunity of meriting 
reward. I may even go further and assert, as Chris¬ 
tians usually maintain, that, if the Almighty sends 
trials to the wicked in this life, it is that they may 
turn from their evil ways and live. So, in the Chris- 


34 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


tian view, suffering may be made spiritually whole¬ 
some for saint and sinner. 

Another mistaken view would make terror the 
Creators chief weapon in the government of the 
world. Why does He not ask us to render service 
freely? Why does He not coax us, as a gentle parent 
would coax a child? 

To this I answer that God does ask for our free 
service; indeed, no other form of service is acceptable 
to Him. But when we speak of free service we do 
not imply that man is free to refuse to render it. It 
is proper that a child should serve its parents, and a 
citizen should serve his country, freely. But neither 
is free to refuse allegiance. It is a deplorable error, 
though quite common in this age of ours, to hold that 
obligation destroys freedom. We forget that duty 
may also be a pleasure. Each one of us has duties to 
home, friends, family, country. But does any one 
hold that we ought to be sad because of the obligation, 
or that we would be much happier if there were none? 
There is nothing more absurd, yet few things more 
common in our day, than the conviction that duty is** a 
painful matter. 

Similarly, there is no opinion abroad that govern¬ 
ment should be all heart and have no spinal column; 
that, at least, parents and God should rule by love 
without stern alloy. 

I quite agree with the view that parental love 
should dominate the home, and I know that the Al¬ 
mighty has shown to all of us love greater than which 
no man hath. But if the parent allows his child to 
think that there is no sternness in reserve when love 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


35 


fails of its purpose, he is likely to have confusion in 
the home. The most irritating scene one may be 
called to witness is a helpless mother trying to get 
obedience, by a manifestation of mawkish endear¬ 
ment, from a spoiled child. As a matter of fact, there 
is, there can be, no government or authority without 
the right and power to coerce the disobedient. Pun¬ 
ishment should be used sparingly, and as a last resort, 
but to renounce the right to punish is to forfeit all 
authority. 

It may be that preachers and teachers have dwelt 
too much on divine chastisement, and have in this 
manner appeared oblivious of the fact of everlasting 
love. But it may be also that there was some need 
of it. There are people who do not respond to the 
call of love; but few, indeed, are indifferent to penal¬ 
ties. Suppose our great cities were to disband their 
police forces, and turn in loving appeal to the law¬ 
breakers, what would be thought of their efforts? 
The question suggests its own answer. 

God is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is 
the strong executive behind the moral law. Were He 
to refuse to punish the wicked, what would become 
of the world? It is, then, especially absurd to demand 
that He should not use coercion on the recalcitrant. 
As ruler, He must punish when punishment is neces¬ 
sary. If He could not, or did not, His authority would 
be nil. His mercy is indeed above all His works; He 
never turns a deaf ear to repentance. But when the 
sinner first defies law and then turns away from 
mercy’s appeal, there is but one thing to do—punish. 

Teach the whole truth. Proclaim the love that en- 


36 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


dureth forever, the mercy that is never wanting; but 
also declare that there is punishment for the sinner 
who will not repent. Give the entire message. 

I have referred more than once to the muddled 
thinking of the present day. I doubt if the modern 
mind is as confused on any other subject as it is on 
the nature and attributes of the Deity. In fact, I am 
convinced that most of the atheism of the present day 
arises from false ideas of God. The best argument 
for His existence is a clear and accurate conception 
of what He is. Unfortunately we do not always find 
this, even among God’s friends. 

fashion in faith 

I use the word faith here, as in many other places 
in this little volume, for acceptance of a doctrine, 
whether the conviction comes from the word of an¬ 
other or from one’s own reasoning. It may, however, 
be confidently stated that in most cases acceptance as 
well as denial comes from authority. What do most 
of those who prate about evolution know of the 
theory? They simply take up the slogan of the hour 
and herald it to the world, feeling that at least they 
are on the popular side. 

A distinguished writer, now dead, declared that in 
his forty years of public life, over forty theories on 
important matters had come and gone. Some dis¬ 
appear very quickly. Few hear of Bergson today. 

Yet, doctrines have their vogue, even as garments. 
Our love of novelty appears even in our opinions, 
as though the eternal verities were subject to our 
caprices! 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


37 


Some irresponsible individual makes a statement, 
which may be a joke. A novelty-loving press, cater¬ 
ing to a novelty-loving people, gives the startling view 
publicity, and a new theory is abroad in a day. 

We too often forget that truth is not a matter of 
opinion; that it does not change with the times, nor 
with the climate. A great First Cause once, a great 
First Cause forever. So with all the other verities. 
It is our duty to come humbly to the truth and offer 
our homage. It is our interest as well as our duty. 

Evolution was before Darwin. He popularized it, 
and, aided by his followers, gave it its vogue. By 
some vagary of the human mind it became, what it 
need not have become, atheistic. There is not a par¬ 
ticle of reason why a theist may not be an evolution¬ 
ist, or why an evolutionist may not be a theist. If the 
desire had been to reach the truth, not to establish 
libertinism, there need not have been a quarrel be¬ 
tween science and religion. I am, however, willing to 
concede that many of the religionists became need¬ 
lessly frightened. 

When evolution came to be accepted, many of its 
advocates claimed to see in it a substitute for God. 
Hence, they associated it with an atheism. Had they 
seen correctly they would have learned from it a 
higher conception of the majesty, power and wisdom 
of the Great First Cause. They saw, however, only 
superficially; hence, only the view that would dis¬ 
pense with responsibility, and make each one a law 
unto himself. 

They flung freely the accusation of ignorance and 
obscurantism at all who differed from them. Timid 




38 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


ones began to regard it as a disgrace to be right. 
Believers held their peace, not because they accepted 
the new views, but because they trembled before the 
avalanche of abuse that poured from evolutionary 
sources. Often the one that spoke up for the old 
cause was more heroic than intelligent. Sometimes 
he was hopelessly uninformed, and was laughed out 
of court. In this way the atheistic vogue was estab¬ 
lished. Evolution has sufficient of truth in it to give 
it standing. No one wishes to deny it this. But why 
make it atheistic? Why substitute the methods of 
acting for the actor? There is not a particle of 
reason for holding that the evolutionary theory dis¬ 
penses with God. On the contrary, as already said, it, 
in so far as it is true, but makes our conception of the 
Deity grander and more sublime. 

But the vogue is changing. Atheism has had its 
day; not, indeed, that there will not be always some 
who proclaim themselves atheists. But the world is 
coming to understand that evolution is not necessarily 
atheistic; that, in fact, each truth discovered makes 
for a better understanding of the power and wisdom 
of the great First Cause. Views come and go, but 
the Truth remains forever. 

In saying this I make all possible concession to the 
claims of the evolutionists. I might, if I so desired, 
deny, as utterly unproved, much of what is asserted 
in behalf of evolution. There is today a growing 
disposition to challenge the findings of what has been 
considered science. Grave and learned men emphat¬ 
ically reject the Darwinian theory, in many of its 
moods, as unproved and unprovable. They reject it, 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


39 


not on religious grounds, but in the interests of true 
science. 


WE NEED GOD 

Some one has well said that if there were no God 
we would find it necessary to create one. This is a 
forceful, if somewhat absurd, way of expressing a 
great truth. We need God. 

I do not advance this as a proof of God’s existence; 
for such it is not. But I wish to call attention to the 
fact that this life of ours will, without God, be found 
to be less and less worthy. In fact as we grow in 
intelligence and as our lives become more complex, it 
will be increasingly evident that without God human 
society becomes less and less satisfactory. Indeed, 
should things continue in the direction of the last 
decade a catastrophe can hardly be averted. What is 
in store for the race no one pretends to know. 

This dire need of a God, accepted and obeyed, does 
not, indeed, prove that He is. But it ought to make 
us willing to accept proof of His existence, if such 
proof be forthcoming. This would mean a good deal. 
For, unfortunately, the greatest evil of the age is not 
actual disbelief in a Creator, but a decided unwilling¬ 
ness to consider the theistic view. Argument is lost 
when people refuse to weigh it. 

It has been frequently maintained that while igno- 
rant peoples need faith in a divinity, enlightened na¬ 
tions, such as our own, can dispense with the super¬ 
natural. Education takes the place of religion. A 
more careful consideration will show that this is far 
from the truth. 


40 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


Looking out upon the world of today we find a 
condition approaching chaos; and we search for some¬ 
thing that can restore order. We have not found 
it yet. 

When disorder breaks out in a city we call in the 
city authorities, officials whom the contending parties 
are obliged to recognize. If the matter cannot be 
composed at once there are the law courts whose 
jurisdiction all must admit. Should any one refuse 
to accept the decision of the courts, force is right¬ 
eously called into operation. Ultimately the disturb¬ 
ance is quieted by an authority which all must recog¬ 
nize. In this way comparative harmony is preserved. 

Were there no authority, the conflict would go on 
until one or other should become exhausted, or until 
both should realize that it is more to their interests to 
live in peace. 

Necessarily this is a most unsatisfactory condition. 
For the desire to live in peace may not manifest itself 
until much harm is done. Moreover, the time may 
soon come when a new war will appear advanta¬ 
geous to one side or the other. If all question of 
right be eliminated, then is mankind in a precarious 
condition. 

The nations of the earth have practically banished 
God from their affairs. Each assumes to be the su¬ 
preme authority on all matters pertaining to itself. 
Individuals may be bound by law, but nations are not; 
except in so far as their weakness compels them to 
submit. God is not supreme Ruler of nations. 
Hence, when two of them quarrel they have no com¬ 
mon tribunal to pass on the matter. 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


41 


Unless they voluntarily submit to arbitration in 
some form they must fight it out. Arbitration, or an 
international tribunal, works well enough when both 
parties desire it to work. Should either desire war, 
war usually comes. 

The world today is without a tribunal to which 
difficulties may be submitted. It has not even a prin¬ 
ciple which all accept. One seeks in vain for a rally¬ 
ing cry to which all harken. God is banished and the 
nations are left to themselves. There is no authority 
to which all ofifer allegiance. Hence, human society 
is in the same condition that a village would be in, had 
it no government, no one to exercise authority. So, it 
must remain, at least intermittently, until the Ruler is 
brought back; until the Supreme Law-Giver is again 
heard and obeyed. When He returns He must come, 
not merely by courtesy: He must reassume His right¬ 
ful place in the afifairs of men and nations. Other¬ 
wise chaos will abide with us; and the more intelli¬ 
gent we are the worse the condition will be. 

My conclusion, then, is that, as no community of 
men can peacefully exist without an authority which 
all recognize and obey, so no community of nations 
can peacefully exist without some one who is both 
law-giver and executive for all. God alone can an¬ 
swer the demands of the situation. I do not pretend 
that the nations show any disposition to accept Him. 
My claim is that He is necessary to them, indeed, 
increasingly necessary; and until He is recognized 
as the rightful Ruler of men and nations, men and 
nations must pay the penalty of refusing to accept 
Him. 


42 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


A standard is necessary 

We must have a standard of values. The necessity 
of this appears no matter in what direction we look. 
The best speakers and writers give us our standard of 
language. The nearer we conform to the model they 
give us the more polite our diction. 

There is a standard in fashion, not always regu¬ 
lated by utility or common sense. In fact, it may not 
suit some people at all. Still they must submit to it, 
no matter how disagreeable it may be. Fashion is the 
most tyrannical of tyrants; and is as fitful as fate, 
even worse than a pagan divinity. 

Manners, too, have their standard, which is set by 
those who, for some reason, have come to be recog¬ 
nized as leaders. With people of fashion one is con¬ 
sidered a boor, no matter what his character or mental 
attainment may be, if he cannot conduct himself with 
ease and grace as society conducts itself. Indeed, we 
find arbitrary rules in such a real thing as culture. 
Every phase of life is regulated by a standard, ac¬ 
cepted and enforced by those who have secured 
ascendancy in the matter. 

A standard may be based either upon real values or 
upon convention. The things we have been consider¬ 
ing, polite language, fashion, manners, are largely the 
product of convention; though they may have kernel 
of real value. But, there are things that can never 
grow out of any form of agreement. Genuine friend¬ 
ship does not derive its value from vogue, or from 
the decision of a coterie. It would be still genuine 
in spite of any adverse opinion, no matter how many 
or how great those that hold it. 


OTHER REFLECTIONS 


43 


So it is with virtue of any kind. Justice, mercy, 
truthfulness, and such do not depend upon a majority 
vote. They shine just as radiantly when trampled 
upon by the great. Driven from the mart and the 
forum, they live in retirement, but are ready to re¬ 
assert their rights at the first opportunity. 

As the value of virtue does not depend upon human 
convention, neither does it necessarily make for util¬ 
ity. The highest virtue is not always profitable. In 
fact the less profitable the higher it may be. It be¬ 
comes heroic only when it involves sacrifice. 

If then virtue’s standard is not derived from 
human convention, from popular opinion or from 
utility, whence is it? Some have thought that it 
derives its worth from the pleasure it gives. But I 
doubt if any conscientious man or woman today holds 
such a degrading view of virtue. Nor will any con¬ 
scientious man or woman be satisfied to see in virtue 
only what humans can bestow upon it. They will 
expect to find in that which they esteem as virtuous 
something independent of man’s view. Virtue makes 
the man, not man the virtue. 

If, then, virtue does not derive its essence or its 
standard from man, whence are they? There is but 
one possible answer: Virtue is from Him from Whom 
all morality springs: from the Author of our being 
Who in giving us our being, gave us also the laws by 
which that being may strive towards its perfection. 
Virtue consists in our conforming ourselves to that 
Divine Will, and in becoming more and more like to 
Him Who is the source of all good. The more we 
make ourselves like to Him the more virtuous we 


44 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


are. There is no other standard: No God, no 
virtue. Every increase in virtue means a step nearer 
to the source, the standard. Atheism makes virtue 
impossible, for it eliminates the source and the stand¬ 
ard. It takes away the only absolute being, who can 
by any possibility be the measure of human excel¬ 
lence ; the only being whose will can be a criterion for 
all. If men set up a standard it is because they, con¬ 
sciously or unconsciously, believe in God. If He be 
not, then is all our reckoning false. 


V 

ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


NO GOD, NO CHRISTIANITY 


W HATEVER the attitude of some Christians 
today, it can hardly be denied that Chris¬ 
tianity is based upon a belief in God. I 
doubt if the extremest atheist will contradict this 
statement. For evidence arises from all sides—from 
tradition, literature and a million monuments—to 
show that a belief in God is the foundation of that 
great religious system which we call Christian. 

Not only is this religion based on belief in God, but 
our civilization rests upon the same foundation. 
Morality, the law of civilized nations, the administra¬ 
tion of justice, all our eleemosynary institutions, our 
ideas of home, of duties to parents, of duties to civil 
and religious authorities; in fact, whatever is high and 
holy in our lives, in our thinking, comes from our 
acceptance of a supreme Lord of the universe, One 
who is also Law-Giver and Judge. 

In the strength of this belief and teaching, Chris¬ 
tianity overcame all opposition, and attracted to itself 
what was best in the human family; and, today, 
counts its adherents by hundreds of millions. Can it 
be that this massive structure, this mighty empire, the 
only righteous empire, rests upon a false foundation? 
Is there naught but error beneath it all? If so, then 


45 


46 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


Nero and the other persecutors were right, and the 
only pity is that they were not able to complete their 
work! 

I invite the denier and the doubter to look at that 
vast and goodly edifice which we call Christianity, 
consider its noble and exalted teaching,—the one 
teaching fit to give man a correct view of his own 
dignity; the one teaching fit to show him the way in 
which he should walk,—and see if after all the whole 
structure rests upon a vast chasm. If mankind can 
accomplish so much with only error for its inspira¬ 
tion, we must regard our existence here as baffling 
indeed. 

I have already said that Christianity rests upon a 
belief in God. I may now add that as a religion— 
and to be a religion is its primary purpose—its chief, 
if not its sole aim, is to worship a Deity. If then 
there be no Deity, Christianity should be wiped out, 
even though civilization go with it! 

To deny God means also to dismiss Christ. For no 
matter how wise the latter’s teaching, no matter how 
beautiful His example, or how pathetic His end,—His 
career and teaching are vitiated, His judgment dis¬ 
credited, by the fact that He constantly spoke of a 
Deity; who, we are now told, never did exist! But 
the business of robbing us of all that is worth while 
in life is a favourite one with the atheist! He sees 
all our hopes vanish, and sheds no tears! 

If some one should reply that Christianity has paid 
more attention to Christ than to God, the answer is 
obvious. It honoured Christ believing Him to be 
God. This is easily established. 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


47 


I conclude, then, that if there be no God, Chris¬ 
tianity is without a foundation, and the whole 
Christian edifice, with all it includes, is based upon 
a falsehood. Hence, Christianity goes, and with it 
Christian civilization. 

NO GOD, NO FUTURE FIFE 

If there be no future life, human existence is with¬ 
out explanation. We labour and suffer through years 
of trial, and then go out into nowhere. 

Something, whatever it is, has given us a strong 
desire to live on in a future state. We instinctively 
shrink from the thought of ceasing to be. Yet, if 
there be no future life, we are hastening on to the 
annihilation of that which we esteem best in us, even 
the soul! 

If there be anything that can reconcile us to the 
decay of our faculties and the approach of death, it is 
the hope that these faculties will be renewed and per¬ 
fected in another existence. We are thus led to look 
not on the grave, but beyond it. Take away this 
prospect, and there is left us but a choice between 
wretchedness and nothingness. 

As a matter of fact, those who, without hope of a 
future life, find themselves declining, take refuge in 
forgetfulness of both the present and the future. 
They object to being told that death is near. Neither 
friend nor physician dare make known to them the 
facts. So general is this condition of mind that the 
average doctor is amazed to find a patient who is 
willing to be told that the end is at hand. Self- 
deception and the honeyed words of family and 


48 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


physician are the only balm left the last days of those 
who accept not belief in a future existence. 

Surely, it will not be maintained that this is a 
wholesome condition. Nor will it be said that it is 
worthy of man. To hide from ourselves facts that so 
intimately concern us is certainly a perversion. We 
ought to know, but we are afraid to know. Why? 
Simply because we do not believe in that future life 
which alone can satisfy our irrepressible longing, and 
which alone can explain and justify this life. The 
longing is universal, though some people try to de¬ 
ceive themselves with the belief that it is not. 

Belief in a future life is demanded as an inspiration 
to heroic action here. It would, indeed, be little short 
of madness to risk the present existence, in behalf of 
any cause, if beyond the grave there were naught but 
a bleak void. Why hasten by magnanimous action the 
annihilation from which every human being shrinks ! 

I may be told that many non-believers manifest the 
most splendid heroism in moments of difficulty. I 
have no desire to deny a fact, which may be easily 
enough accounted for. Inherited disposition, habits 
of thought, the example of others, human applause,— 
these often prompt men to deeds of valour. Perhaps, 
too, men who have no hope of a future existence grow 
contemptuous of life here. Or, they may feel that 
atheists, being in the minority and propagating an 
unpopular doctrine, would injure their cause by any 
manifestation of cowardice. Explain the condition as 
you may, the fact remains, that those who do not hope 
for a future life are foolish to throw away the small¬ 
est portion of this, if they esteem it at all. 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


49 


It may be argued that general commendation, the 
esteem and gratitude of one’s fellow men, are com¬ 
pensation enough for any sacrifice one may be called 
upon to make. But many die in the performance of 
the heroic act—what of them? 

You say they will be held in grateful remembrance 
by the public. I wish that those who think there is 
compensation in this would ask themselves, the next 
time they attend a funeral, if the corpse is at all inter¬ 
ested in the eulogy of the preacher. And if not now, 
will it be later, when it has crumbled into union with 
mother earth ? Eulogies may comfort the living, but 
they bring no happiness to the clay that lies motion¬ 
less. That which might be comforted has, in the opin¬ 
ion of those who deny a future existence, ceased to be. 
Hence, the conviction that those who die heroically 
will be compensated by the gratitude of posterity, is 
based upon belief in a future life, and has no rational 
right to existence if all ends with the grave. Some 
one may tell me that, while a future life is necessary, 
it need not be an eternal life. My answer is that the 
argument here advanced does not demand an eternal 
life, but only such a duration as will give opportunity 
for rewarding those who have lived and died nobly. 

7 We have to turn to other considerations for proof 
that the future life is eternal. However, this does 
not enter my present scope. 

Whether the future life be temporary or eternal, it 
must be ruled by a wise and just intelligence. If the 
ruler be not intelligent, those who enter the life be¬ 
yond are utterly at the mercy of chance. If it be not 
a wise intelligence, it will make blunders. If it be not 


50 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


a just intelligence, the good may be in a worse con¬ 
dition than if chance ruled the situation. So, an in¬ 
telligence, wise and just, is demanded that heroism, or 
even ordinary virtue, may receive due compensation 
in the next life. This is obvious. The very reasons 
that demand a future life, demand that its presiding 
genius be intelligent, wise and just. I am not saying 
that this argument requires that the genius be God; 
one less than infinite in perfection might meet the re¬ 
quirements. But he must be of such calibre that he 
understands the minds and hearts of all human be¬ 
ings ; he must be rich and powerful enough to be able 
to compensate all according to their respective merits; 
and he must be so fair in his distribution of com¬ 
pensation that no one will be denied what he is entitled 
to. Otherwise, human existence is a misery and a 
deception, and those who would restrict or destroy it 
are friends of all. 

NO GOD, NO MIRACLE 

I do not think that enlightened and fair-minded 
historians take the responsibility of sweepingly deny¬ 
ing the supernatural. The raising of Lazarus and the 
resurrection of Christ are so well authenticated that 
an intelligent publicist will at least hesitate before 
challenging the accepted views on these historic 
events. 

Similarly, we have such testimony to other happen¬ 
ings, that one who has pondered the statements made 
by scientific men can hardly muster up courage to 
deny what has been so definitely asserted. To insist 
that nothing beyond the power of human agency has 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


51 


occurred anywhere, is to flout evidence of the most 
unexceptional character. 

Without extending our survey to include many 
facts, whose historicity cannot be challenged, we may 
confidently affirm that, except all human testimony 
fails, the world has known occurrences that are not 
the work of any earthly agency. Miracles have 
happened. 

But, if we are to accept atheistic evolution, and 
hence deny a personal God, no miracle has occurred, 
for the simple reason that no miracle could have 
occurred. Lazarus was not called from the tomb, 
Christ did not rise from the dead, and other well 
authenticated marvels are but the clever work of 
legerdemain. Miracle goes, as God goes. Indeed, all 
that men have believed and hoped and loved—Chris¬ 
tianity, civilization, art, literature, heroism—whatever 
has cheered or ennobled man through the ages, passes 
away, dissipated by the lurid light of atheistic evolu¬ 
tion. Verily, atheism is both daring and drastic; a 
Juggernaut crushing all that men have held dear, and 
demolishing the very foundations of the edifice which 
mankind has builded in tears and in hope! 

NO GOD, NO FREE WIDE 

Atheistic philosophy has no love for the contention 
that the human will is a free agent. The reason for 
this opposition is easily discovered. 

Matter has no choice. In similar circumstances it 
will always act in the same way. All our experi¬ 
ments, indeed, all our movements, pre-suppose this 
truth. Matter neither deliberates nor chooses. And 


52 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


if it has not the power of choice, it cannot possibly 
develop it in, or bestow it upon, anything else. 

Plants and animals, though possessed of life, are 
without power of self-determination. They neither 
cogitate about what may be done, nor reflect upon 
what has been done. If animals are not deterred or 
prevented, they go straight to the object of their 
desire. They cannot resolve now that they will do 
something tomorrow, or even one minute hence. On 
the other hand, man can plan for a year, and even 
change his plan. 

We are aware that conditions may arise to inter¬ 
fere with free will even in humans. Passion, habit, 
lack of self-control, limit, though they seldom destroy, 
freedom. And, even when they do destroy it, it is but 
for the moment. 

We know we can do, or refuse to do. We can go 
out or stay in; work or remain idle. In practice, no 
one questions his ability to choose. It is only when 
he wishes to be philosophical that even the materialist 
has any doubts about his freedom. 

Often, after having done a thing, we regret that we 
did not leave it undone. We are sorry and some¬ 
times seized with remorse, because of what we now 
regard as having been a foolish or even a wicked step. 
Why should we concern ourselves, except on the sup¬ 
position that we were free, and, therefore, could have 
refrained from doing the thing? 

But, perhaps, you may say that we could not refrain 
either from the deed or from the remorse. We are 
victims of fate which forces us to do things and then 
makes us fret and worry because of our having done 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


53 


them. The lower animals are not tortured in this way. 

We punish people for committing what we call 
crime, which, in the materialistic hypothesis, they 
could not have avoided. This is justifiable only on the 
principle that we cannot help punishing them. The 
so-called criminal has committed no crime at all; the 
so-called judge has not judged, but has merely acted 
from irresistible impulse, and the poor hangman 
hangs, not because hanging is good, but because it is 
in him! 

We are, let us say, severely bumped in an accident, 
and though at first we are wrothy enough, we soon 
learn that it could not be helped; and we, therefore, 
forgive. Another one deliberately strives to kill us, 
but misses his aim. We are genuinely angry with 
him, and unless we are especially mild, we find it hard 
to forgive. 

Here we have two situations. In one we are hurt 
but bear no malice; in the other we are not hurt, but 
yet meditate revenge. How could this happen unless 
on the supposition that the second party determined to 
injure us? If he were not free he could not have so 
resolved. We concede his freedom by being angry 
with him. 

I have already referred to the things that limit 
freedom. I would add here that it is not necessary 
for any argument to maintain that liberty may not be 
limited or destroyed, sometimes. If we can prove 
that man is free at any time or under any circum¬ 
stances, we prove that there is at least one thing in the 
world that matter cannot give, freedom. Hence, there 
must be an agency that is not dependent upon matter, 


54 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


an agency that can bestow freedom, and which, there¬ 
fore, must itself be free. This, of course, matter can 
never be. 


FAMILY AFFECTION UNEXPLAINED 

In the animal world the strongest affection binds 
dam and sire to offspring. Either will suffer any 
hardship, brave any danger, in defense of its young. 
The devotion of the parent even surpasses the intelli¬ 
gence it manifests in bringing up its brood. 

But it does not appear that this devotion is at all 
reciprocal. The offspring sees in dam and sire naught 
but providers. The affection it shows will be be¬ 
stowed upon a companion. In other words, the young 
animal goes to the parent for its wants and nothing 
more; and, further, when it is no longer in need of 
anything, the parent seems to mean nothing to it. 

What is still stranger, the heroic parent, once pre¬ 
pared to face any enemy in defence of offspring, soon 
casts its young off, and perhaps even drives it out of 
the vicinity. When dependence ceases there is no 
more affection, no more recognition of relationship. 

See how different it is with the human. Neither 
father nor mother ever loses devotion to a child. 
Affection continues, not only through the years of the 
child’s dependence, but to the end. 

Similarly, filial devotion, unless some perversity 
intervene, does not diminish. Though the child has 
ceased to need the parent, and when even he is called 
upon to support the parent, affection does not grow 
less, but greater. Also, when death separates parent 
and child the same feeling continues. If they are 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


55 


believers, devotion follows the departed one to an¬ 
other life; if not believers, the memory of the one 
who has ceased to be is treasured as a priceless 
inheritance. 

Can materialism explain a relationship that has 
nothing to correspond to it among animals inferior to 
man? If man have not an existence beyond things 
material, if he have not a spirit that transcends any¬ 
thing to be found elsewhere in this world, there is no 
accounting for the phenomena mentioned. There 
must be a spiritual life and, therefore, a great spirit 
whom we name God. The inference may not be 
obvious at first, but it is irresistible on adequate 
consideration. 


NO GOD, NO PRAYER 

A short while ago I witnessed the presentation of 
the old morality play—Everyman. The most solemn 
moment came when the principal character knelt to 
make earnest appeal to God in whom she believed. 

Few in the audience accepted Everyman’s faith. 
Probably many had no faith at all. But I doubt if 
one of those present remained unmoved. 

I have witnessed similar occurrences in Moham¬ 
medan lands. A follower of the Prophet spreads his 
prayer-mat on the desert sand, or on the deck of a 
ship. He quite forgets those about him and is in¬ 
different to comment. But there is no comment. 
Christian and Jew, infidel and atheist, all show that 
they are touched. There is not the least manifesta¬ 
tion of frivolity. Silence akin to awe prevails. 

You may dismiss all this as a trifle, or as a mani- 


56 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


festation of human weakness and superstition. Very 
well, but will you deny that a thing so universal, a 
feeling that has such hold on unsophisticated human 
nature, may be dismissed as of no moment ? Can that 
which is so strongly instinctive in us be false? If so, 
we ought to be on our guard against anything that 
touches us profoundly! 

NO GOD, NO GOVERNMENT 

When I speak of government I have in mind one of 
right, not of mere force. Force is its own explana¬ 
tion, and its own title. Its great weakness lies in the 
fact that it must bow to greater force. It has no 
standing before the tribunal of righteousness. We 
owe it nothing except what prudence dictates. 

We ask, then, what is it that makes government 
righteous ? What gives it its claim upon us ? 

Some will answer, tradition. We find government 
here; our fathers submitted to it, and we follow in 
their footsteps. 

Clearly this answer will not do. In an age of in¬ 
novation, an age in which everything is challenged, in 
which old views of religion and life are so readily 
discarded, it will hardly suffice to say that we accept 
government simply because our ancestors accepted it. 
We must find some other reason. 

This is furnished us by those who hold that gov¬ 
ernment rests upon popular suffrage. Government 
based on the consent of the governed is the American 
motto. 

Unfortunately, this theory is beset with many diffi¬ 
culties. We might in the first place ask, upon what 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


57 


is the principle founded? Is there anything in law, 
human or divine, which can give a sure foundation 
for such a view? It will be difficult, nay, impossible, 
to find it. Hence, we have nothing but assumption 
and assertion to support the contention that govern¬ 
ment derives its authority from consent. 

Further, very few governments have ever sought 
the consent of the governed. Were all that did not 
seek it without authority? If they were, the world 
scarcely ever had a legitimate government. Not one 
of our codes of law grew out of the popular voice. 

When we speak of the will of the people we usually 
mean the will of the majority of the people. Whence 
does a majority derive the right of lording it over a 
minority? What gives them the power they claim? 
Force? Force does not establish legitimate authority. 

Again, is what we call a majority really such? 
Whence comes the right to hold that a majority of 
males over twenty-one is a majority of the whole 
people? We have no such right, even though all 
males voted, which they seldom do. 

Sometimes an election is carried by fraud; voters 
are deceived by campaign lies; many voters do not 
know for whom or for what they are voting. Does 
any one hold that a majority of males, who often 
vote ignorantly, and sometimes because of bribes or 
promises, can establish a righteous government which 
all must respect and obey ? 

Some have held that government derives its power 
from a contract which each is supposed to have made 
with all. This foolish theory is now generally 
abandoned, and rightly. 


58 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


First of all, a contract is not to be presumed, but to 
be proved. There is no evidence that either party 
ever made such contract, even tacitly. And even if it 
could be shown that both did, since there is no one 
above them to enforce the contract, either may with¬ 
draw from it at will. There are many other diffi¬ 
culties which need not be dwelt on here. Enough has 
been said to show that the “ social contract ” is absurd 
and meaningless. 

Others have maintained that there is a contract be¬ 
tween government and the governed, whereby the lat¬ 
ter surrenders a portion of their liberty in exchange 
for the protection which the former offers. 

This theory has all the bad features of the other. 
There is no evidence that such a contract exists; and, 
if it did exist, there is no authority to enforce it. 
Either could recede from it at pleasure. 

The theories so far advanced encounter another 
difficulty: All governments assume the right of im¬ 
posing the death penalty. From what source is this 
right derived? 

Some one will answer, from the contract. But can 
anyone contract his life away? Can he validly con¬ 
sent that it be taken from him? If he can do either, 
it must be because he has jurisdiction over his own 
life. If he have not, how can he transfer it to an¬ 
other? If he have such jurisdiction, he has a right to 
commit suicide whenever he pleases. I do not think 
that any government concedes this right. Yet, if one 
has not a right over his life he cannot grant it to 
another. And if a man cannot surrender his own life 
he cannot surrender the life of any one else. Neither 


ATHEISM’S DEVASTATION 


59 


can any number of men. We have no jurisdiction 
over other lives. 

It follows, then, that no government, claiming to 
derive its authority from men, can put any one to 
death; unless it admits that its citizens or subjects are 
justified in suiciding whenever they please. 

I urge this against the assumption that a govern¬ 
ment may receive from one something that he himself 
has not got. As a matter of fact I hold as evident 
that if there be no God, any one may suicide when¬ 
ever he desires to do so. Governments do not admit 
this, even when they claim to derive their authority 
from those whom they rule. There is inconsistency 
somewhere. 

Examine all the theories that can be put forth re¬ 
garding the possibility of government resting ulti¬ 
mately on human will, and you will find they all fail. 
If there be no foundation other than what man can 
give, anarchism stands triumphant. If authority have 
not God behind it it is at best a tyranny which no one 
is morally obliged to respect or obey. Legitimate 
government does not exist. We can have nothing 
more than a temporary arrangement which any one 
may reject without notice. No God, No Government. 

But human society cannot exist without govern¬ 
ment: and man cannot attain to happiness, comfort 
or well being without human society. Apart from 
human society he becomes a cave man, doomed to 
extinction. Hence, without God, no government, no 
human society, no worthy existence. This is the in¬ 
evitable consequence of atheism, if pushed to its 
logical conclusion. 


60 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


To escape these dire consequences we must accept 
God, who created human society; and, in order that 
it might thrive, gave to it the right of establishing 
government that should function with His authority, 
and share in the power that is His. Government, then 
properly established and acting within its rights, holds 
its authority from God. He who resists it resists the 
ordinance of God. 

It matters not whether the people establish or merely 
accept the government, it matters not whether author¬ 
ity rests in the hands of one or many, government 
lawfully existing and lawfully exercising its authority, 
represents God, and enjoys rights which only He can 
bestow. There is no other explanation of government. 
The authority thus divinely given may either first be 
bestowed upon people who have a right to transfer it 
to whom they choose; or it may be given directly by 
God to those whom the people have chosen. There is 
no practical difference between the two views. In 
either case power comes from God, Who alone can 
bestow it. I repeat, No God, No Government. 

So, the destructive influence of atheism extends to 
every human interest. It leaves nothing standing. 
Everything that men love, everything that orderly life 
demands, whatever is necessary to individual or social 
well-being, goes down in utter collapse before this all- 
destroying pestilence. Why men cling to it, why they 
desire to propagate it, must ever remain a puzzle. 
Even if it were true, it is so ruinous, so pernicious, so 
chaotic, so utterly deplorable, that men should draw 
the curtain of forgetfulness over its dread and hid¬ 
eous visage. 


VI 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 

DESPAIR 

I F there be no God, then are we orphans, indeed. 
This would, of course, give us such freedom 
as the Prodigal Son had after he separated him¬ 
self from his father’s house. We could follow our 
own bent, minding only the civil law, the rules of 
health and such conventionalities as the set to which 
we belong imposed. 

The civil law would not limit our freedom much, 
for it interferes with us only to a very small extent. 
Those who pay their taxes, commit no violence and 
avoid indecencies in public, can manage to get along 
very well with the secular authorities. A man may 
be very wicked without falling foul of the civil law. 

Nor, need the question of health bother an intelli¬ 
gent man very much. It is only a weakling or an 
ignoramus that wounds his own health. There is 
greater and more prolonged enjoyment in abstaining 
from excess. The experienced libertine will never 
depart to any alarming extent from the laws of phys¬ 
ical well-being. He is always a man of decorum. He 
sedulously eliminates from his viciousness whatever 
savours of grossness and whatever might seriously 
shorten his period of enjoyment. By a method, de¬ 
liberately thought out, he can indulge his desires with- 


61 


62 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


out gravely hurting himself; and, if perchance, he 
should do himself bodily or mental injury, whose 
business is it? Since there is no God above, and no 
one depending upon him, may he not dispose of him¬ 
self as he pleases? What right has any one, es¬ 
pecially what right have those who have banished 
God, to interfere with his disposition of himself? It 
would of course be better if he acted otherwise; but 
since he has freely chosen this course for himself, 
who has any right to object? 

As for the demands of a social set, there is nothing 
in the world more easily disposed of. The compan¬ 
ions a man chooses are all usually after his own 
model; and if they should not be, it is easy to make 
a change. 

So, with God out of the way, without a Sovereign 
Ruler to demand an account and to inflict punishment, 
there is no reason why a man may not indulge his 
fancy in perfect security. I shall not make the accu¬ 
sation, which would not be true, that all atheists are 
sybarites ; but I can very well understand that those 
who do not believe in God may feel more free than 
the young man who has abandoned home to escape its 
restraints. 

However, the time came when the poor prodigal 
found himself a wretched outcast. And the time may 
come in the life of an atheist when the outlook is 
drear, indeed. When life is hurrying to its close, 
when the grave is opening to receive the wanderer, 
when no ray of light illumines the expanse beyond the 
grave, the situation becomes tragic. The mind may 
wander back to a youth of expectation; to a later 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


63 


determination to accomplish something, to a pride 
which spurred one on to make for himself a name. 
Now all opportunities have passed, a feeble mind 
functions in a feeble body, the past has proved alto¬ 
gether unsatisfactory, and the future does not exist. 
Why this life at all? Were it not better that it had 
never come? Verily, present existence without a 
future life is scarcely a boon. The present writer has 
often heard men in their decline declare so. 

It is hardly conceivable that there could be a future 
life without God. But if there should be, matters 
would be worse still. Who likes the prospect of set¬ 
ting out alone for an unknown shore? There can 
hardly be a condition more dreadful than to be cast 
alone upon the open sea not knowing to what hostile 
shore one may be borne. 

THE MORAL LAW GOES 

I presume that most men admit a moral law, a law 
extending far beyond the limits of any human enact¬ 
ment. Human codes, after all, cover but very little of 
our lives. Few of our actions, and scarcely any of 
our thoughts, fall under the scrutiny of man. And if 
one should seek a desert place, abandoning the haunts 
of men, no man-made law would follow him. For all 
such laws are made for society, and this he has 
forsaken. 

Yet, who would say that a rational being is exempt 
from law under any circumstances? No matter 
where we find ourselves, our own consciences, as well 
as the consciences of mankind, hold that there are 
things we may not do, things that are essentially 


64 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


wrong. But, unless an action is forbidden by some 
law, it cannot be wrong. 

Some may say that certain things are forbidden by 
what we owe ourselves. “ What we owe oursevles ” 
is, I believe, a figure of speech. “ To owe ” requires 
two persons, a debtor and a creditor. In accurate 
speaking, we cannot owe ourselves anything; and, if 
we did, we as creditors could remit what we as debt¬ 
ors owe. It is always within the right of a creditor to 
forgive a debt. As a matter of fact, then, speaking 
correctly, we owe ourselves nothing. 

It follows, therefore, that if any obligation hang 
over a man living in a desert island it must come from 
a law-giver who is not the man himself, and who is 
not human society. 

There must be a law-giver whose will regulates 
thoughts, words and actions which human society 
does not and cannot take cognizance of. If there be 
not, the moral law is a figment, and men who aim at 
obeying it are deceived. The best of the human fam¬ 
ily is and has been hopelessly in error. 

I admit that it would be better for a man to lead 
the kind of life, that we call upright, no matter where 
his lot be cast. We would most certainly advise him 
to do so. But this would be giving him counsel, not 
imposing a law. 

Some one will say that conscience has its dictates, 
and conscience goes with people everywhere they go. 
To this I answer that, conscience is but the echo of a 
higher law, the law of the Creator; and if there be no 
Creator, conscience simply gives a false alarm. 

Besides, conscience is considerably a matter of 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


65 


training and, therefore differs in people. Even in the 
same person, it changes, and sometimes almost ceases 
to act. 

But there is a moral sense. This, I take it, is rather 
an instinctive thing, depending upon family or racial 
characteristics, and somewhat upon training, age, and 
other influences. If there be any element of the per¬ 
manent in it, something that is found in all peoples 
and in every moral individual, it is very indefinite, 
and its authority may be fairly challenged. 

If, for instance, one has an opportunity of appro*- 
priating something that does not belong to him, and 
his resolve to act is checked by a natural honesty 
which training may have developed, he may argue 
with himself in this manner : This shrinking of mine 
comes from ancestors who- believed in God, and from 
the influence of parents and teachers who believed in 
God. Their belief to me is superstition. Why should 
I be bound by it ? Perhaps it would be better to leave 
the goods with their owner. So society says. But 
there is no proof that society has any right to bind me. 
Why should I care about it? Men may say that it 
would be better not to touch the goods. I know I 
would be better off if I had them. Why then should 
I hesitate? 

Can you, dear reader, give this man any compelling 
reason why he should not take the property, if you 
reject the God who uttered His edict, “ Thou shalt 
not steal ” ? It would of course be better if he did 
not. But we are looking for law, not for mere 
recommendation. 

Or, we will suppose another situation which may 


66 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


be even more to the point. In the case of theft, the 
one who is robbed may be considered reasonably un¬ 
willing to have his property taken. We shall imagine 
a condition in which no one is unwilling to bear his 
part. 

An autonomous community resolves upon promis¬ 
cuous living. If individuals object they receive com¬ 
pensation for property and leave. The sentiment of 
those remaining is unanimous. There is neither force 
nor violence. All enter whole-heartedly into the new 
arrangement. They do not believe in God, hence the 
law of the land is the only law for them. They are 
living according to that law, for they themselves have 
made it. Are you satisfied? If not, why not? 

You say the community will die out. Let it. Is 
there any obligation, apart from God, to keep it alive? 
What does it owe posterity, particularly as there will 
not be any posterity. Nor is it unreasonable to hold 
that, if there be no God, it were better there should 
not be posterity. Why bring into existence human 
beings who must sutler without hope? I conclude, 
then, that if there be no God, the moral law is a fig¬ 
ment which, of course, is without binding force. If 
this view startle you, it is because atheism is chaotic 
no matter from what point it is viewed. 

THE MORAE EAW WITHOUT SANCTION 

It is, I believe, an accepted and universal principle 
that law must have a sanction; otherwise it avails not. 
The wisest enactment fails if it neglect to provide 
punishment for those who violate it. 

Leaving out of consideration what Christians hold 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


67 


about the positive will of God, the moral law occupies 
the highest place in human affairs. In fact, all law 
may be said to derive its authority from it. 

We have already seen that civil legislation touches 
our lives but occasionally. Yet we are always, as 
rational beings, under law. This can be no other than 
the moral law. 

But, if it be in the true sense a law, as it necessarily 
is, there must be a system of rewards and punish¬ 
ments by which it may be enforced. 

We shall see later that there is no evidence that 
transgressions against the moral law are generally 
punished here. We have seen that there are instances 
in which they cannot be adequately punished in this 
life. What so often appears punishment of sin is the 
penalty of folly, or of the violation of physical laws, 
or the conventions of human society. 

Hence, it follows that were there no future life the 
moral law would be without adequate sanction,'— 
therefore no law at all. That universal guide, con¬ 
science, which goes with rational beings wherever 
they go, would be dismissed as a bugbear or a super¬ 
stition, an ogre that for ages has been terrorizing 
mankind. The future life, which this law demands 
as its sanction, requires God, if matters are not to be 
worse still, beyond the grave. 

If the punishment of wickedness or the violation of 
the moral law demands a future life presided over by 
God, as assuredly it does, the due reward of virtuous 
or heroic action also demands it. If there be no God 
and no future life, what is to become of those who 
make the supreme sacrifice for the good of others? 


68 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


The hero who dies in an effort to rescue women and 
children from a burning building receives no com¬ 
pensation here. Hence, if there be no hereafter, he 
receives no reward of any kind. 

I conclude, therefore, that without a future life, 
presided over by a wise, just and intelligent Being, 
the moral law is without a sanction, and is therefore 
no law at all. 

SIN IS NOT ALWAYS PUNISHED HERE 

It would be false to deny that it is ever so punished. 
When and how often we do not know, but it appears 
that at least sometimes wrong-doing receives some 
chastisement even here. 

But to infer from this that sin is always punished 
in this world, either adequately or inadequately, would 
be to draw a wholly unwarranted conclusion. Those 
who reach such a conviction can hardly be said to 
come to it by any process of reasoning. They are 
borne to it by some striking event, or, perhaps, are, 
consciously or unconsciously, resolved to dismiss the 
possibility of suffering beyond the grave. It is truly 
wonderful what flimsy arguments satisfy us when 
they harmonize with our desires. 

When we come to study the situation closely, we 
discover overwhelming reasons against the view that 
sin invariably finds its punishment here. To begin 
with, Christians generally hold that there are sins 
which merit eternal punishment, which obviously can¬ 
not be inflicted here. Then, there is nothing to show 
that the sun does not shine and the rain does not fall 
indifferently upon just and unjust. Indeed, it is often 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


69 


said that, all in all, the wicked have frequently the 
better of it in this life. A very high authority says 
that the children of this world are wiser in their 
generation than the children of light. 

Usually, when we speak of sin being punished in 
this life we have in mind, not an occasional trans¬ 
gression, but a long reckless course of wrong-doing. 
People who' continue in sin are generally discovered 
and disgraced, finally. But if this be the only punish¬ 
ment, there would have been none at all had they 
desisted from sin a little earlier; or had they died 
before being discovered. It may even be that a little 
precaution, or moderation in evil-doing, ,would have 
saved them all trouble. Clearly, then, affliction in this 
life comes in a most haphazard manner, and is not 
always the penalty of guilt. Generally speaking it is 
not sin but unwisdom or folly that is punished here. 
The cunning transgressor may go a long way before 
he is discovered; and even when found out, it is not 
always the moral fault that is punished. Hence when 
we speak of sin being duly punished in this life we 
speak from a confused condition of mind. If the 
punishment be inflicted by the state, it is not the sin 
which is an offense against God, but the misdemeanor 
or crime, which is an offense against the law, that is 
punished. 

Again, when we see an old roue’ afflicted with aches 
and pains, or in dire need, we say that he is being 
punished for the sins of his youth. This is clearly an 
unwarranted assertion. For, what the man is being 
punished for is not sin, but a defiance of the laws of 
health and economy. 


70 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


Similarly, when one, after bearing a good name 
through many years, suddenly falls into disgrace, be¬ 
cause of some transgression or series of transgres¬ 
sions which hitherto he had been able to conceal, we 
are apt to conclude that his sins have found him out 
and are now bent on punishing him. Here again I 
have to challenge the conclusion. The man is not 
being punished for his sins, but for his defiance of 
social convention. It is as a crime against public 
order or decorum that his act is punished. If I de¬ 
sired to be sarcastic I might say that he is being pun¬ 
ished for the sin of being found out. 

Should some insist that at any rate he is being pun¬ 
ished for being wicked, I would ask: for what are his 
innocent wife and children being punished? Obvi¬ 
ously, their suffering is little, if at all, less than his. 
It may be even greater. For, not infrequently, the 
discovery brings them the agonizing conviction that 
they have for years been trusting one who is false. 
If sin is punished in this life, why should innocent 
relatives and friends, who have not shared in the sin, 
be involved in the penalty? The present writer has 
known instances in which the one, who had been a 
Jekyl and Hyde, had passed away before his dual 
character had been discovered. His ears were closed 
to human gossip before busy tongues began to take 
liberties with his name; while wife and children re¬ 
mained to bear the humiliation and the disgrace which 
he had brought upon them. If punishment be in¬ 
flicted generally in this life, the agency that inflicts it 
is often either blind or deliberately unjust. 

One need not delve deeply into history, nor canvass 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


71 


thoroughly personal experience, to discover that often 
the truly good are woefully afflicted. It may even be 
that a very considerable majority of the sorely tried 
are not suffering through any fault of their own. 
Many, indeed, suffer because of ignorance, which I 
hope no one will consider a sin. 

It will, I think, appear that there is no evidence to 
show that men are punished, as a rule, in this life for 
their sins. Hence, the majority of transgressions 
must go unpunished, if there be not a future life. 
And, I presume, no one who does not believe in God, 
considers a future life possible, or desirable. 

If, then, transgression be not always adequately 
punished here, and we have seen that it is not, the 
moral law demands a future life, controlled by One 
who is Lord of the world. That sin is occasionally 
punished here does not weaken our position. For 
proper order demands that no guilty one shall escape. 
Should guilt ever claim immunity the government of 
the moral world would break down. 

I conclude, then, that there is absolutely no proof 
that sin is, as a rule, punished in this life. That it is 
sometimes we not only concede but affirm; that it is 
always, we absolutely deny. Nor, may we forget that 
the graver sins, which usually give one an evil repu¬ 
tation, cannot, according to Christian teaching, be 
adequately punished in this life. 

CAN VIRTUE BE ITS OWN REWARD? 

Virtue certainly brings peace of mind and gives a 
calm confidence that can come from no other source. 
The Milk-white Hind “ feared no evil for it knew no 


72 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


sin.” This form of confidence comes not only from 
the active exercise of virtue, but from the absence of 
transgression. In other words, the negatively good— 
if there be any such—may experience it. 

Beyond this, noble souls are usually thrilled when it 
is given them to accomplish something of an heroic 
nature. Should they survive the effort, they feel what 
appears compensation for the risk they have taken, in 
the consciousness of having achieved something great. 
This, however, is a short-lived sensation, as it ought 
to be. 

To yield to the charm of praise or fame is always a 
dangerous weakness; one that has often led to pitiable 
results. The sooner the whole matter is dismissed 
the better. 

It is natural that man should find comfort in the 
thought that he has accomplished some good. But it 
is easy enough to allow this feeling to develop into 
vanity or self-complacency, neither of which is desir¬ 
able. On the whole, the better type of man does not 
ruminate much on the good he has accomplished. 
The hero who is modest is superior to the one who 
proclaims his greatness. Hence, the effort to get 
much out of the noble achievement one may have 
reached, is not particularly noble. From this it fol¬ 
lows that, the ones who get most out of consideration 
of their achievements are not of the highest type. 
The truly great man is glad when good is done, no 
matter who does it. Hence, the contention that a good 
deed is its own reward does not bear examination. 
Even when the hero lives to hear his praises sounded, 
or to feel his heart expanding at the thought of what 


FURTHER DESTRUCTION 


73 


he has done, still modesty, not self-complacency, is the 
virtue he should practice. There is much more of 
weakness than of strength in satisfaction that is born 
of heroism. Virtue, then, is not its own reward, and 
when it tries to be it ceases to be virtue. 

Further, there are occasions when the hero dies in 
the performance of a noble deed. Where is his re¬ 
ward if there be no future life? 


VII 


ABOUT MATTER 

WHENCE IS IT? 

T AKING things about us—the earth, the solar 
system, the universe—as we see them, we 
naturally ask, whence are they? The scientist, 
feeling that the answer must come from him, tells us 
that all we see originates in lower and less differenti¬ 
ated forms. In fact, he says that if we push the 
inquiry back it will appear that whatever is came 
from a shapeless mass, from something that filled 
space as a cloud might, anyway, from matter in its 
simplest form. Some give other explanations. 

It does not concern our argument to inquire, for 
instance, whether the thing called primordial matter 
ever had real existence; nor are we concerned as to 
whether the nebular theory is the right one or not. 
We are willing to take matter in any form, or even 
without form, if such be possible. Our only quest is 
for the something out of which the world of today is 
made. Present it as you think it has been, and we 
ask, whence is it? 

There are two possible answers: (1) It never came 
into being, but always was; (2) it was brought into 
existence by some agency equal to the task of produc¬ 
ing it. I am unable to see that there can be a third 
explanation. The choice, then, lies between eternal 




74 


ABOUT MATTER 


75 


matter and its production by some power. Let us see 
whether or not the true explanation lies in the accept¬ 
ance of eternal matter. 

I am aware that many good theists admit the possi¬ 
bility of an eternal matter; on the principle, that God, 
Who is eternal, could have created it from all eternity. 
None of them (the theists) of course do or can admit 
self-existing matter, whether eternal or of limited 
existence. Nor, do I think that, while admitting the 
possibility of eternal matter, any of them concedes 
that matter, as we see it, is actually eternal. 

But we are concerned not so much with what is 
admitted as with what the facts really are. 

We have already considered the question of the 
Infinite and the Eternal. There is the eternal proper, 
which is the ever nozv; which knows neither succes¬ 
sion, change of state, beginning, nor end. Clearly 
matter, the world about us, is not eternal in this sense. 
For it certainly knows change and is marked by devel¬ 
opment, succession of states and conditions. 

But, there is the eternal, improperly so called, which 
means the endless possibility of adding to time. In 
this sense, Christians regard the future life of the 
human soul as eternal. In their view the soul never 
dies. Is matter eternal in this sense ? 

First of all, be it remembered, that we are dealing 
with the past, with the beginning of things. The past 
is fixed. We cannot go beyond the beginning and 
proceed to add indefinitely to it—proceed to reach 
back and back and back. This would be to stultify 
ourselves. The only way we can add to the fixed past 
is to wait until the slowly coming future increases the 


76 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


volume. Here and now—at any here and now— 
the past is fixed, and here and now cannot be 
added to. 

But let us concede—improbable though the con¬ 
cession be—that matter is eternal in the limited and 
improper sense. What then? It goes back through 
countless ages to a beginning which is a stopping- 
point at which we pause to draw breath, but is really 
not a beginning. Let the scientists be our guide 
through the labyrinths. 

Some of them tell us, in their modesty, that this 
earth of ours is hundreds of thousands of years old, 
some say millions of years, some billions. We shall 
not stint them. Though they are not in agreement, 
we still honour their views. In fact, we are willing 
to concede them billions, trillions, quadrillions, etc. 
But we advise them that there is still incalculable 
time between their reckoning and eternity, even im¬ 
perfect eternity. If the world came into existence at 
the time indicated by them it is not eternal. There are 
unreckoned ages away beyond their beginning. 

The scientists also tell us that certain changes have 
taken place in the last few years,—that, for instance, 
man has come into existence perhaps not more than a 
million years ago>, or it may not be more than one 
hundred thousand years ago. In fact, they do admit 
that change is still going on, and that we may have 
something better than man, in the next fifty thousand 
years. They forget that if matter be eternal, even in 
the restricted sense, all these changes, though their 
name be legion, would have taken place innumerable 
ages since. The advent of man would have occurred 


ABOUT MATTER 


77 


in a past so remote that the longest life would be too 
short to express it in figures. 

So it would seem that matter is not eternal. Other¬ 
wise, its movements, as we know them up to date, 
would be buried in a past so remote that the time 
given geological periods would know nothing of them. 

The conclusion is then forced upon us that matter 
is not eternal, but came into being at a time which, 
compared even to imperfect eternity, is recent. 

How did it come into being? By chance, which is 
nothing? Did it create itself ? This would imply that 
it undertook the colossal task of bringing itself into 
being before it had any existence! 

It follows then that matter, first matter, comes 
from some power, whatever it may be, that was able 
to call it forth from nothing. There is no other pos¬ 
sible explanation of our world as it is or as it was. 
All other efforts at explaining only run more deeply 
into absurdity the more you consider them. 

It is, of course, possible, to imagine matter as re¬ 
maining in a state of absolute rest for innumerable 
ages, and then suddenly awakening into activity. 
Having thus begun operations, it gradually produced 
the changes, some of which occurred at a compara¬ 
tively recent date. 

However, against such an assumption, is the uni¬ 
versally recognized fact that matter is inert; and, 
therefore, utterly unable to put itself in motion. It 
can neither stop of itself when moving, nor arouse 
itself when quiescent. If, therefore, it were for one 
second motionless it would require some force outside 
itself to stir it to activity. Hence, the supposition 


78 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


that after remaining motionless for any period, be it 
long or short, matter became active is absurd. 

If someone should object that, according to our 
views, God remained inactive from eternity, and then, 
at some particular moment resolved to create, we 
answer: God was never inactive. Indeed, the scho¬ 
lastics referred to Him as most pure act . From all 
eternity He willed creation, but willed it to come in 
time, as it did. He did not become more active in 
creating, but simply produced the result at the time 
fixed upon from eternity. Surely, inert matter could 
not act in this manner. 

Consequently, the view that matter is eternal is 
contradicted by everything we know of the subject. 
It must have come into being, not through chance 
which is nothing, nor through its own efforts—for 
like other things it must exist before it begins to work 
—but through some outside agency capable of pro¬ 
ducing it. 

In brief then our argument is: Matter itself, in its 
every mood testifies to the fact that it is not eternal, 
but came into being at some time. Be that time quin- 
tillions or sextillions of years ago, it is still immeas¬ 
urably removed from even imperfect eternity. It still 
speaks of an assignable beginning, which would ut¬ 
terly dispose of the idea of eternity. Further, if, by 
some impossibility, matter could be regarded as 
eternal, the changes which admittedly have taken 
place in comparatively recent times, such as the ad¬ 
vent of life and of man, would have occurred in¬ 
numerable ages back. Here are the facts that dispose 
of the possibility of eternal matter, and when properly 


ABOUT MATTER 


79 


understood, demand a creative power outside of 
matter. 

I dismiss without consideration, the emanation 
theory, according to which the universe flows by some 
natural process, from the Deity. This form of pan¬ 
theism, though much more reasonable than the athe¬ 
istic views of today, is generally now rejected. 

MATTER IN TIME AND SPACE 

Seeing that matter is not eternal, it is easy to con¬ 
clude that it is not a necessary being. If it exists 
necessarily it must have existed from eternity. 

Theists claim one necessary being whom they call 
God. He exists necessarily. It is impossible that He 
should not exist. Essence is inseparable from exist¬ 
ence in Him. Hence, He is eternal, unchangeable, 
unmodified, unconditioned by any other being; there¬ 
fore absolute and infinite. 

The world in which we live, the universe of which 
our earth is a part, is not eternal. It is changeable, 
limited, conditioned. Also, it is not necessary; in 
other words it might not be. 

Now, since it has come into being at the bidding of 
some power capable of giving the word, we naturally 
inquire: Why did it come into being at the particular 
time? We know no reason why it did not come 
earlier or why not later. What is the reason that we 
are not now in the stone age, and what is the reason 
that we have not attained and even passed the day of 
the superman? Can science tell us why we are just 
now, and not earlier or later ? 

Again, why are we in the precise space which we 


80 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


occupy? The material universe occupies but a very 
small portion of space. Between our earth and the 
planets there is a vast area. Why is it not occupied ? 
You may say that it would not be well for us if it 
were. Then, I ask, who was it that knew in advance 
that it would not be well for us? Whosoever he was, 
he must have been close to the Creator at the time this 
world came into being. 

Beyond our solar system there is also vast space. 
Why is it vacant? Did primordial matter, or the 
clouds of the nebular hypothesis, know that they must 
leave so much space unoccupied ? Wondrous clouds, 
surely, if they did! • 

But chance, more wondrous than the clouds, came 
to their aid. Let us hope that this same vagrant, way¬ 
ward chance, that has, by the merest accident, made 
such a hit in putting us all where we ought to be, may 
not in a movement of wild recklessness upset the 
whole arrangement! 

The truth is that atheistic science can give no rea¬ 
son that will explain why the world is so old and not 
older or younger, or why it occupies the precise space 
it occupies, with so much vacant. If some scientist, 
loyal to his cult, wishes to contradict that statement, 
I should be glad to hear from him. But let him lay 
aside his sesquipedalia, and in the vernacular, present 
such evidence as a court of justice would accept. I 
am inclined to think that he cannot do it. 


VIII 


DEVIOUS WAYS OF “ SCIENCE ” 

ATTITUDE OE SOME SCIENTISTS 

T HERE is nothing more incomprehensible than 
the attitude of a certain type of scientists 
towards the existence of God. Many of the 
men who teach in our colleges and universities have 
apparently entered into a conspiracy to boycott the 
Omnipotent. The few who dissent from the move¬ 
ment seem afraid to manifest their disapproval. In¬ 
deed, the atheists have been permitted to name their 
teaching “ science.” No one may question their find¬ 
ings without proclaiming himself false to a cult which 
dominates the schools. 

The fact that they flounder hopelessly in their ef¬ 
forts to explain things does not abash them. If the 
past and present do not aid them they draw lavishly 
upon the future, which, they confidently assure us, 
will satisfy all claims. The present expansion of the 
currency in impoverished Europe is but a trifle com¬ 
pared to the promissory notes issued by the profes¬ 
sors of today. All this is done that the Creator may 
not have a place in His universe. 

What would be thought of a public prosecutor who, 
when called upon to solve some mysterious happening, 
should say to his men: “ There is a wide-spread opin¬ 
ion that A. B. is guilty of this: and indeed, it must be 


81 


82 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


confessed that such a theory gives a very plausible 
explanation. But, I demand of you that you account 
for it on some other hypothesis. A. B. must not be 
ever thought of in this connection.” It is safe to say 
that, despite much corruption in public life, no man 
charged with the detection of crime would venture 
upon such a course. 

Yet, such is the stand taken by the so-called 
scientists of today in investigating the origin of all 
things. They impose on themselves and others the 
obligation of finding a cause for the existence of 
things which will dispense with a creative agency. 
No matter how often the need of a Creator becomes 
apparent, no matter how halt any hypothesis that dis¬ 
penses with Him may be, they go bravely on, confi¬ 
dent that the future will supply what is wanting to 
the present. Atheism now has its prophets, drawn 
largely from the scientific school! 

It will appear later on in this discussion that the 
most fundamental and far-reaching facts must go 
without explanation unless a Creator is admitted. 
Yet, men teaching in schools functioning under Chris¬ 
tian auspices, do not hesitate to deny the existence of 
God, and thus rob their pupils of the only restraining 
influence. Not only this, but in some instances, the 
professors of atheism call themselves Christians, and 
are even associated with some one of the churches— 
worshipers on Sunday and Godless atheists during 
the week. They sing “ Nearer, My God, to Thee ” in 
church, and banish God from the school! This incon¬ 
sistency has become so common that it goes unchal¬ 
lenged, perhaps unnoticed. 


DEVIOUS WAYS OF “ SCIENCE " 


83 


John Henry Newman somewhere says that scien¬ 
tific studies do not develop the reasoning faculty; and 
any one who has read modem works on science will 
agree with that keen observer. Study, ever so little, 
the present day scientific propaganda, and you will 
readily discover that Prof. This and Prof. That accept 
as proof positive what no legally trained mind would 
for a moment regard as evidence. The average Scien¬ 
tist is credulous to a degree. Whatever makes for his 
“ divinity ” is readily accepted. Indeed, I am quite 
sure that when the present craze has passed, and when 
men have come to a sane consideration of the great 
problem, it will be discovered that never in the 
history of the world was there such an output of 
twaddle as that given this age by the teachers of 
so-called science. 

The trouble with these men is that they are not 
broadly educated. They have studied a little science, 
but scarcely anything else. The master faculty, judg¬ 
ment, they have neglected to develop. In their eager¬ 
ness to establish the supremacy of evolution they deny 
adverse views all hearing. Those who differ from 
them are ignoramuses and dunces who should be 
relegated to the Dark Ages, or the limbo of dead 
superstitions. 

In order to protect themselves from question, or, it 
may be, from scorn, they surround themselves with 
an atmosphere of mystery. Their language is grand¬ 
iloquent and remote. They borrow their ponderous 
verbiage from the Greek, a tongue that few of them 
understand. With an exalted air of classicality and a 
torrent of sesquipedalian verbosity, they aim to 


84 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


smother all opposing opinion. That which ought to 
be presented in understandable language is wrapped in 
esoteric phrases, which you must understand, under 
pain of being dismissed as outside the domain of 
intellect. 

If they condescend to debate, Prof. A. will quote 
Prof. B. and Prof. C., Prof. B. quotes Profs. A. and 
C. Prof. C. returns the compliment to both. So a 
formidable array of talent is got out of a vicious 
circle. How many of them quote Lord Kelvin, 
who is admittedly one of the few great scientists 
of all time? If these men are so sure of them¬ 
selves, they ought to be a little more patient, and 
they should also state their views in the language of 
the day, so that he who runs may read. There is no 
thought that may not be adequately expressed in the 
vernacular. 

Another advice I would give, though they will not 
take it, is:—learn to weigh evidence and do not jump 
to conclusions. There may be other and better ex¬ 
planations of the phenomena you observe. 

The present writer is convinced that, though science 
will live and grow, the scientific attitude of today 
must and will change. Indeed, he believes that the 
ebb-tide is here. We have, of course, great scientists, 
but their voices are drowned in the chatter of pre¬ 
tentious sciolism. 

the: potency claimed eor evolution 

According to the view of scientists I have in mind, 
evolution is the most marvelous power ever heard of. 
It has taken the shapeless thing that first matter was 


DEVIOUS WAYS OF " SCIENCE ” 


85 


and differentiated it by prolonged and unerring pro¬ 
cess into present forms. Though possessed of no in¬ 
telligence itself, it has adopted the best means of 
attaining a definite end! Its course has been along 
lines which a deity could not improve upon. Having 
no mind of its own, it has discharged the functions of 
the highest mentality and ultimately has given us the 
minds that now are, as well as those that have been. 

No pagan deity—not all the pagan deities—has ever 
accomplished so much. In fact, evolution vies in 
efficiency with the great Jehovah of Jew and Chris¬ 
tian. It is without either peer or rival. And it does 
all this gratuitously! 

The gods of paganism demanded some return for 
their beneficence. The God of Jew and Christian 
demands our love and service. But the modern deity, 
evolution, seeks no compensation, exacts no obedi¬ 
ence, is neither pleased nor offended. He leaves us 
so utterly free that the uttermost libertine can 
acknowledge Him, without feeling the necessity of 
restraint. In fact, he is such a “ good fellow,” and 
so wkling, that we should have a “ good time,” that 
many attribute his popularity to this fact alone. He 
is no “ Kill-Joy ” and, therefore, we love him. 

Of course, he would not have us do ourselves either 
corporal or mental injury. He would not have us so 
act as to weaken mind or body. But, if we can settle 
matters with our physician he is satisfied. This is the 
complacent attitude which evolution takes, and in 
which it differs very much from God, Whose law 
binds patient and physician, gentle and simple, lord 
and peasant, bond and free. 


86 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


the methods oe modern science 

The late Robert Ingersoll was known to hold that 
effective propaganda was conducted, not by argu¬ 
ment, but by assertion. Assert and repeat your asser¬ 
tion, until your view has sunk into the memory of 
those whom you would influence. 

It would seem that this method is a favourite with 
many scientists of today. They assume that argu¬ 
ment is not only useless but unnecessary. You must 
accept their view or be consigned to the necropolis of 
orthodoxy’s “ die-hards.” Never was hierophant so 
dogmatical as the scientists can be. They may, per¬ 
haps, condescend to inform you of what Prof. A. or 
Prof. B. says, if it be in harmony with their own 
views. But, as for deliberate reasoning, or any earn¬ 
est effort to solve the difficulties that may be advanced 
against their views—this they never dream of. 

Some of them may be good enough to confound 
you by an avalanche of years. If you challenge the 
possibility of alleged facts, you are asked to consider 
the countless eons that have elapsed since the process 
of evolution began. They forget, and do not desire 
that you should remember, that years of themselves, 
accomplish nothing. Time is not an agency. If a 
thousand years do nothing, ten million years will do 
nothing. If something is done in a short time, more 
will be done in long time. But a billion nothings is 
still nothing. Every one knows, though no one can 
prove it, that if you create a vacuum and hermetically 
seal the space, time will not bring anything into it. 
The appeal to innumerable ages is simply bewildering, 
but proves nothing. Of course, when people are 


DEVIOUS WAYS OF “ SCIENCE ” 


87 


willing and anxious to believe, there is little need of 
argument to convince them. When the craving for 
novelty is over-mastering, traditional views have small 
chance. The young, in such circumstances, welcome 
the one who assumes the role of iconoclast. If one 
can with any show of plausibility, give people novelty, 
liberty and the unrestrained right to think as they 
please on any subject, especially on the question of 
conduct, he is a veritable “ Daniel-come-to-Judg¬ 
ment.” Hence, assertion sufficiently repeated, com¬ 
bined with contempt for those who deny, produces 
its effect. 

This may not be the true scientific way. Indeed, 
real science is calm, humble and patient. Neither in¬ 
solence, nor arrogance, nor contempt is ever found in 
the genuinely inquiring mind. 


IX 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 

THE FIRST CAUSE 

I N order to simplify the discussion of this subject, 
I shall ask the reader to allow me to make the 
following apparently irrelevant remarks: In any 
illustrious family (indeed in any family) a parent is 
first, a child last. When I say a child is last, I do not 
imply that this particular child ends the family, but 
that it brings it down to date, any date. Also, when I 
select an illustrious family I do so because the history 
of such a family is probably better known. Hence, I 
would for this reason prefer some European dynasty, 
whose story is familiar, the Hapsburgs, Hohenzol- 
lerns, or the English Royal Family; though any 
known family answers the purpose equally well. 

If a parent be not the first there will be no dynasty 
—the family beginning and ending, at least in direct 
line, with one generation. A child must be the last; 
for if the one who terminates the family or brings it 
up to date, have not a child he (or she) is a child (I 
do not mean in years) and not a parent. This is so 
obvious that it is idle to discuss it. 

Generations of parents and children alternate and 
there are as many generations of one as of the other. 
If, however, it were possible—which it is not—that 
the head of the family were a child and not a parent, 


88 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


89 


since the last must be a child, the generations of chil¬ 
dren would exceed by one the generations of parents. 
If this seems to the reader too abstruse a little con¬ 
sideration will make it clear. 

But some one will say that the parent who was at 
the head of the family, or dynasty, was a child in 
some other family of less note. Be it so. 

It is now our duty to take up the family of less note 
and subject it to the same scrutiny. We find that it, 
too, begins with a parent and ends with a child. And 
no matter what number of social grades we investi¬ 
gate, we find that each begins with a parent and ends 
with a child—at the present or any other date. 

Or, if we dismiss all reference to social grades and 
illustrious families, and dynasties, and simply take up 
any child, and trace it back, no matter through what 
generations or through how many centuries we find 
that at the head of that child’s human beginning 
stands a parent who was not a child. This may seem 
subtle, but it is absolutely true and undeniable, and 
due consideration will demonstrate it without other 
argument. 

But, some one will say, the parent in the human 
family was a child in the monkey family. Again, be 
it so. Hence, we turn to the simian and we find: 

This monkey family of which the human parent 
was the last child began not with a child, but with a 
parent. The process of argumentation already ap¬ 
plied to humans shows this to demonstration. And if 
it be held that the monkey descended through a num¬ 
ber of inferior species, or from a very lowly begin¬ 
ning, we apply the rule laid down and it will appear 


90 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


that at the head of each species was a parent, at the 
foot a child. You can figure the matter out for 
yourself. I have seen fourteen-year-old children 
solving more difficult problems. 

Now, since parents are causes and children effects, 
the principle applying to them applies to other causes 
and effects. So let us apply it. 

The present world in which we live is the effect of 
the world that preceded it. This is good evolutionary 
doctrine. The preceding one was the effect of what 
went before it. So, we go back as far as you wish, 
and we find effect and cause alternating, until we 
reach the beginning. There must be a beginning for 
we cannot go back forever. 

At the head of this long series of causes and effects 
stands a cause, a first cause, which cannot be an 
effect, otherwise it would not be the first cause. A 
moment’s consideration will show that if it were an 
effect it would require a cause. And this cause would 
antedate the supposed first cause, which would be an 
absurdity. So at the head of this universe stands a 
first cause which, whatever it may be, is uncaused. 
Professional atheists will deny all this, though they 
offer no substitute; and indolent minds will refuse to 
enter upon consideration of the matter. But the argu¬ 
ment defies contradiction. 

In the process of evolution, especially of living 
things, man stands out as the last effect. The human 
has not yet given existence to any thing either higher 
or later than himself. So far, he is not a cause but an 
effect. Hence, at the head of the alternating series 
of cause and effect, of which the human is the last 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


91 


effect, there is a cause which is not an effect. Make 
the number of causes and effects what you may, there 
is still a first cause, which is not an effect. There is 
then a first cause, and if there were not, nothing could 
ever exist. 

To sum up: since anything exists, there must be a 
first cause which being first must be uncaused; there¬ 
fore, self-existing, and eternal. If there be no first 
cause, the first existing thing was an effect without a 
cause; and as all things are the effect of this effect, 
whatever is is effect. Such a theory upsets all 
calculation. 

A VOID REMAINS VOID, UNLESS— 

The argument derived from the necessity of a First 
Cause—which, being first, is itself without a cause, 
therefore, uncaused—is so important that I deem it 
well to state it in another manner. Generally I find 
fault with the method of thinking that requires visual¬ 
ization. Now, however, I desire that the reader 
should visualize. 

Take a strong box, as suggested elsewhere, remove 
everything from it, seal and sign it. Come to it after 
any number of years and you do not expect to find 
anything in it. Should, however, you discover that 
there is really something there—a glove, a hat, a 
collar button, anything—you immediately conclude 
that some one broke into it and left you the treasure- 
trove. There is no other way of accounting for your 
discovery. The thing did not bring itself there. It 
did not grow out of nothing. There is no possible 
way of explaining the presence of the article unless 



92 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


on the assumption that some one got into the box and 
left the thing in it. 

Let us assume that the space is not a box but a 
house; and let us go through the same process. The 
house is empty, its windows and doors closed: you 
have made it impossible for any one to enter. Yet, 
when you return some years after you find a bed, a 
chair, or a broom in it. How did it come? You 
know with absolute certainty that some agency 
brought it there, an agency acting from outside. 

Ascend some day to the eternal snows that cover an 
Alpine range. You will find the silence of the place 
awe-inspiring. Above, the clouds, beneath, the end¬ 
less snows. Should you return after some time and 
find an inn at the end of a funicular railway, you 
would know that it did not plant itself there. It did 
not grow out of the clouds, or from the snows, or 
from the silence. Intelligent activity placed it there. 

Let us expand our vision. Instead of gazing on 
the space between the clouds and the snow, we shall 
visualize all space. Was it always occupied as it is 
today? Or was it at any time empty? If empty, 
then, as in the case of your sealed box or house, 
nothing could come into it, unless brought in by some 
power capable of bringing or doing the work. 
Further, it must come from outside of all space. In 
other words it must be brought into being or created 
out of nothing by a power equal to the work of 
creating it. 

The evolutionist will say that the bodies and atmos¬ 
pheres which now are found in space come from pre¬ 
existing material. Their unwillingness to admit a 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


93 


Creator forces them into this position. But if mat¬ 
ter be not eternal it must have been brought into 
being by something that is not itself. There is no 
other alternative. 

The things we observe in the universe manifest life, 
order, intelligence. Hence, this original matter which 
is presumed to be eternal must have been alive, or if 
not alive must have had the power of creating life. 
All we know of the subject today denies the pos¬ 
sibility of life coming from dead matter. What 
right, then, have we to assume that original matter 
had a potency which matter, as we know it today, 
has not? 

Furthermore, we find in the universe of today in¬ 
telligence, sometimes of a very high order. Has the 
matter with which you are acquainted intelligence? 
If not how can you hold that original matter had? 
Or does the intelligence we observe come from a par¬ 
ticular kind of matter that has now ceased to be? If 
so, we are forced to ask what agency gave to one por¬ 
tion of original matter an extraordinary power which 
it has denied to another? Evolution makes a too 
great demand on our credulity. 

Also, we find in our experience a freedom which 
the matter of today seems not to possess. We find, 
for instance, people saying I will and I will not; I 
engage to be with you tomorrow, or I cancel a former 
engagement. Had the original matter such power of 
discretion ? or was it capable of creating it ? Could it 
bestow something, and such an extraordinary some¬ 
thing, which it itself did not possess? 

In addition to this, we find things putting them- 


94 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


selves in motion—animals, for instance—and bringing 
themselves to a full stop. Matter as we know it can 
do neither one nor the other. 

Hence, even though we concede that matter is 
eternal we still find so many insurmountable difficul¬ 
ties in the evolutionist theory that only the blindest 
credulity can accept it. A dozen impossibilities greet 
the evolutionist—who nevertheless, goes bravely on. 

Thus far I have been conceding the possibility of 
eternal matter. Elsewhere I endeavour to show, and 
not without success, that matter is not eternal. It 
cannot by any possibility be eternal in the strict sense 
of the word. We find it in motion and subject to 
change. Had it been in motion and changing from 
eternity, an infinite number of changes would have 
taken place. This would of course have exhausted all 
possible changes. For beyond the infinite there is 
nothing. Neither the word eternal nor the word in¬ 
finite can by any possibility be applied to matter, or to 
any thing that changes. An infinite series is an ab¬ 
surdity. There is one infinite and eternal being 
unchanged and unchangeable, God. 

MOTION AND A FIRST MOVER 

Walking leisurely in an afternoon I approached a 
railway switch where I saw a long train of freight 
cars standing idly on the track. Suddenly, I heard a 
bump, then another and a third, and so on, until the 
whole train was moving backwards. I noticed that 
that which gave the first bump was the engine 
and that which received it was the first car. Having 
received the shock the first car communicated it to the 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


95 


second, the second to the third, etc., until all were in 
motion. 

Not one of the cars moved itself. If something’ 
outside it had not interfered, each car would have 
remained in ease and comfort, until time and the ele¬ 
ments should dissolve it. The engine was the cause 
of all the trouble. 

Did the engine move itself ? No. There was some¬ 
thing within it which we call steam—this performed 
the trick. Back of the steam was water. What did 
the water do ? It certainly would have done nothing, 
but would have remained absolutely quiescent, had 
not a force which we call heat begun to operate on it. 
This unruly heat caused the water to expand and in 
expanding it had to have more room, which it found 
by moving something out of its way. The thing 
moved, being stubborn, when deprived of the room it 
occupied, insisted upon occupying room belonging to 
another,—and so motion began. 

The heat which is the cause of all the trouble does 
not produce itself. It is caused by a process of disin¬ 
tegration—which we common folks call burning—of 
coal or wood. So now we find the guilt lies with coal 
and wood, themselves innocent victims of commer¬ 
cialism and of the application of heat at a high degree. 
Neither coal nor wood is bent on giving trouble; 
hence, they would gladly remain as they had been, 
were they not subjected to torture. 

But it must be admitted that both coal and wood 
are potential mischief-makers. However, we must in 
justice admit that there would be no danger from 
either coal or wood, for there would be neither coal 


96 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


nor wood, but for a powerful and aggressive entity 
that we call Sun. Nor would this Sun do much dam¬ 
age, had he not been able to influence his servant, 
Earth. So acting upon this tame subject, he has been 
able to produce, through a process we call vegetation, 
both coal and wood. 

Yet, again in justice to this criminal alliance be¬ 
tween Sun and Earth, we must admit that they do not, 
because they cannot, give any trouble, unless they can 
use for their fell design, another thing we call life, 
vegetable life. Without this they could grow no trees, 
plant no forest, have neither wood nor coal. Their 
wickedness would come to naught, the engine would 
bump no car, were it not for this evil genius we call 
vegetable life. 

We now ask, whence is this vixen, vegetable life, 
the cause of all the bumps? We know not; our 
laboratories cannot produce it. Does it produce it¬ 
self ? If it did, it would be ultimate in the process of 
causing and of being. But we do not think it pro¬ 
duces itself. It is too weak, too dependent, too much 
in need of aids—soil, water, sun—to be the absolute 
and eternal. We must go back of vegetable life to 
find some independent thing. And, as an infinite 
series of causes is absurd and impossible, we must 
finally reach a cause that is first and, therefore, un¬ 
caused; a motive power that is itself unmoved. For, 
if not unmoved, it must have something else to move 
it, and therefore would not be first mover. 

Applying these thoughts to the world about us, we 
find matter everywhere in motion. Our solar system 
in reference to the universe, our earth in relation to 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


97 


the solar system; also rotating upon its axis. The 
waters of our planet are often in angry tumult; 
movement of seasons, of animal and vegetable, of 
things coming, of things going; motion within the 
plant and the blade of grass, motion in the clod of 
earth, motion in the atmosphere, which can be gentle 
and also blow destruction. Whence is it all? 

We know that matter cannot change itself. It 
cannot put itself in motion. It cannot, when in mo¬ 
tion, bring itself to rest. Whence, then, its motive 
power? What so disturbs it? If you begin to assign 
a cause we inquire for the cause of the cause, and so 
on. You must either admit a first motive power itself 
unmoved, or take refuge in an infinite series of 
motors, an impossible and absurd refuge, as we 
have seen. 

So motion, everywhere observable, demands a first 
motor which is itself unmoved. (The same would be 
true, if, instead of a universe in motion, we had one 
clod of earth in motion.) And the first motor un¬ 
moved must be capable of imparting to the universe 
the varied and enormous motion we find in it. Other¬ 
wise, you have an effect without a cause, therefore an 
impossibility. 

My argument demands only an adequate cause for 
all the motion there is. But, further investigation will 
show that this adequate cause is no other than the 
eternal, unconditioned, necessary and infinite Being, 
whom in English we call God. 

If science can give us motion without a mover, a 
first mover, which being first is itself unmoved, we 
are all attention. If it point to chemical action, we 


98 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


ask, whence is chemical action? What gave matter 
the power to thus put itself in action? If it belong of 
necessity to matter, then nothing material can ever be 
quiescent. Further, if matter be independent and 
eternal, it must have been in motion through eternity, 
and therefore, ought to have completed its work long 
ago. There is, then, no refuge but in a first motive 
power which is itself unmoved, God. 

GOD AND ORGANISMS 

By organisms I mean beings that have the power 
of assimilating some of the things about them and 
thus growing from within. In other words, the 
things that possess life, whether vegetable or animal. 

While my purpose is to show that the existence of 
life, vegetable or animal, demonstrates the existence 
of such a being as God the argument here advanced 
is in no wise necessary to my main contention. With¬ 
out it we have proofs in abundance of the great truth 
of God’s existence. Besides, spontaneous generation 
was generally accepted until recent years; hence, even 
by those who never questioned the existence of God. 
Consequently, should the time come when it may ap¬ 
pear that life is independent of special creation, the 
necessity of a Creator will still be easily demonstrable. 

I am writing on a beautiful May day when all about 
me is aglow with exuberant life. The trees are garb¬ 
ing themselves in raiment of nature’s spinning; many 
flowers are in bloom; and happy herds browse on gen¬ 
erous meadows. Everywhere is life. The charm of it 
all is irresistible. But we must not forget that there 
was a time, a long while back, when these things did 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


99 


not exist. There was a time when this earth of ours 
knew no life; there were periods when, according to 
science, our world could neither nourish nor tolerate 
life; periods in which the matter we now find sustain¬ 
ing life was so nebulous, so hot or so cold, that life 
here was an impossibility. Neither scientist nor 
theologian will question this statement. 

From such condition, bleak, barren and forbidding, 
we have happily come to a time when teeming life 
gladdens the eye of the beholder, and when fruitful 
mother earth promises plenty for her millions of 
humans and countless numbers of flocks and herds. 
Whence, the change? All came through the advent, 
when conditions permitted, of life to our sphere. 
Whence this life? 

Some have fancied that it may have blown in from 
another planet. A fancy, indeed, absurd and impos¬ 
sible: and if possible it would only push the inquiry 
farther back. 

Scientists who rule out a Creator insist, and, to be 
consistent, must insist that whatever of life we behold 
on this earth has come from spontaneous generation: 
life simply came from lifeless matter, by virtue of 
some potency within the matter. An alarming theory, 
surely. Alarming because what matter once did, it 
may do again. Hence, the ground we till may some day 
rise up to punish our intrusion, and the road we walk 
on may open to engulf us in a chasm, in retribution 
for our prolonged trespass. If this seem to be trifling, 
permit me to reply that the scientists are constantly, 
though unconsciously, engaged in such nonsense. 

In reference to spontaneous creation, it may be con- 


100 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


fidently asserted that there is no proof that any such 
coming into life has ever taken place. Scientists and 
theists agree in this; with this difference that theists 
generally incline to the view that it cannot take place, 
while atheists, by the very necessities of their position, 
hold that it can and has taken place, though they do 
not pretend to prove it. The question for them, as 
you may see, is one of extreme urgency. For, if 
spontaneous generation is not a fact, then they must 
admit a Creator, an admission which they would re¬ 
gard as intellectual suicide. 

Not only is there no proof that spontaneous gener¬ 
ation ever occurred, but all laboratory efforts to pro¬ 
duce life, even in its lowest form, from non-living 
matter, have failed. Scientists have devoted much 
time and great skill, aided by the best facilities, to 
bring forth life. They have been stimulated, not only 
because the foundation of their theories is at stake, 
but because enduring fame awaits the man who can 
call forth any form of life from non-living matter. 
But no candidate for the unfading laurel has yet ap¬ 
peared. Many sane and enlightened men confidently 
assert that he will never appear. 

Not only, so far as present knowledge goes, is some 
power from outside necessary to produce life in this 
material world, but such extramundane influence is 
necessary to bridge over the chasm that separates 
vegetable from animal life. Hitherto there is not a 
particle of evidence that any vegetable organism has 
been able to pick itself out of the earth and begin to 
strut about as an animal, even in the latter’s lowest 
form. Nor do we think any definite claim is made 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 101 


that such has happened. Of course, we are often 
awed by the vast number of years that is shaken at us. 
But, we may not forget that years of themselves 
accomplish nothing. So, it does not appear that up to 
date there is a shred of justification for holding that 
life upon earth has come or could come from any 
source other than a creative act. Evolution of inor¬ 
ganic matter, even when aided by science, has not, so 
far, produced a living thing; and there is not the 
smallest reason for holding that the genus vegetable 
has ever been transformed into the genus animal. 

However, cogent as this argument is, we do not 
attach to it the importance which we must give to that 
derived from the necessity of a First Cause. For, we 
cannot assert, though present appearances would seem 
to justify the assertion, that the future will not de¬ 
vise methods of producing life from inorganic matter. 
Should this happen, while it would not prove that 
evolution produced the life that now is, it would 
diminish the force of the present argument. This 
proof of God’s existence is not then as compelling as 
some of the other proofs. But fortunately, it is not 
necessary. For, not only was it not always advanced 
by theists in the past, but even though it could be 
shown that life may come from inanimate matter, still 
there would be need of a First Cause to explain the 
potency given to nature. 

Let me add that, while the existence of life upon 
earth does not of itself prove to demonstration the 
necessity of a Creator, it makes such necessity ex¬ 
ceedingly probable; indeed, so probable, that had the 
protagonists of atheistic science, such a proof for 


102 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


their views they would certainly utter a triumphal 
note. 


Earth testifies to design 

When we come to consider the earth in itself, that 
is, apart from the other members of the solar system, 
we find no escape from the conviction that a designing 
hand fashioned it. How else could the things, which 
only the wilfully blind can fail to observe, be ac¬ 
counted for? 

I repeat what I have already remarked, that in 
order to infer a designer it is not necessary to dis¬ 
cover design in everything. If there be design in 
anything, then there is a designer. 

I am far from conceding that an intelligent plan 
does not pervade the whole. But we may not be able 
to see it everywhere—either because of our preju¬ 
dices, or incapacity; or because the plan has been to 
some extent interfered with, by the only one who is 
free to interfere with it, man; or because the great 
Creator does not choose to reveal it, demanding con¬ 
fidence from us, even when things seem to be without 
explanation. “ Blessed is he that has not seen and has 
believed. ,, 

Whether or not we can discover design everywhere 
there cannot possibly be question but there is design 
somewhere, and this is enough. It is impossible not 
to see intelligent plan in “ the day to labor and the 
night to rest,” in the succession of seasons, in the 
majesty of winter, in the splendid hope of spring, the 
richness of summer and the bountiful rewards that 
autumn brings. There is no monotony in nature, but 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


103 


an ever-varying flow, constantly tending to the one 
end, which is human welfare. 

Those who accept the theory of an undifferentiated 
mass of primordial matter, and this in time resolving 
itself into present conditions, by any means other than 
intelligent guidance, will find it hard to account for 
the fact, that the different minerals have been able to 
separate themselves into the various mines. How did 
the gold get together, and the iron, etc? You may try 
to explain how it happened, but you cannot find the 
cause, the agency, unless you admit an intelligent 
designer. 

Man needs iron for his advancement, and the 
amount that may be found diffused generally through 
earth and water will not answer his purpose. Was it 
not a designing intelligence that put it together in 
sufficient quantities to make it the instrument of 
human civilization ? The same question may be 
asked about other minerals. 

How does it happen that water, which, like other 
things, generally expands under the influence of heat, 
comes to a condition in which cold becomes the 
agency of expansion? As it gets close to the freezing 
point it grows in volume and becomes lighter. Did it 
not, did ice follow the general law, instead of floating 
on the surface, it would sink into the water, and 
escape the sun’s rays in the summer. Our lakes 
would then become masses of ice, fish life would be 
impossible, and man’s use of the waters gravely 
menaced. 

Have you ever considered the wonderful irrigating 
works that the Creator has placed above us? The 


104 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


earth needs water in spring and in summer. The great 
Designer has established a system by which water is 
lifted from ocean, lake and river, and spread over the 
thirsty land, with an efficiency compared to which 
human effort is but a toy. When the water has served 
its purpose, it goes back to its source to be again and 
again called up to serve similar beneficent use. Any 
one who fails to see intelligent purpose in nature’s 
system of irrigation is blind indeed. 

When the autumn comes and the grass, vines and 
such things cease to bloom, when the leaves fall in 
profusion from the trees, were there not some way of 
disposing of these incumbrances, earth would in time 
become so covered with dead grass and leaves that 
there would be no possibility of further growth. But 
nature gives us a kingdom of microscopic living things 
to dispose of the obstruction. Through the operation 
of these unseen friends, fallen vegetation is reduced 
to dust, and becomes a help, not a hindrance, to 
further growth. Is there no design in this? One 
might write volumes on such evidences of design. 
But we turn now to the instinct of animals. 

See the migratory birds: they know when to leave 
our northern climate and when to return, though they 
keep no calendar. Who teaches them ? 

Have you ever seen a bird’s nest? Naturalists tell 
us that the plan could hardly be improved upon; yet 
a bird not a year old often builds it. Nor did she 
have an opportunity of seeing her mother build one. 
Still her first attempt is a success and in many in¬ 
stances a marvelous success; and when her young 
ones appear she manages her new charge with utmost 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


105 


efficiency. Though she has never attended a meeting 
of a mothers’ club, she knows how to provide for 
their comfort and their health. Yet, when they are 
able to care for themselves, she is quite peremptory 
in dismissing them. Who taught this bird when to 
build the nest, how to build it, how long to brood, how 
to take such unerring care of her offspring, and when 
to dismiss them? Is there no design in all this? Has 
the little thing thought it all out herself ? 

She has not thought of it at all, but has done all of 
these things, not by virtue of what is intelligence in a 
human, not because of advice or experience, but 
simply in obedience to a prompting within herself. 
Who placed the prompting there? Who> gave the 
design which works out so marvelously in bird and 
beast and bee? No other than He Who is Author of 
all life and all being. 

If we were to turn from bird to bee, the design 
becomes even more apparent, as the wisdom shown is 
even more astonishing. 

Those who have studied bee-life are amazed at the 
intelligent purpose manifest. The structure of their 
homes and the government of their colony are alike 
amazing. So with ants, beetles and others. Every¬ 
where there is intelligent purpose, everywhere de¬ 
sign ; purpose and design that cannot come from the 
little creatures themselves, but are derived from the 
great Creator Who gives the impulse for the preser¬ 
vation of the species. 

This impulse not only serves to provide these 
creatures with homes and government, but with food 
of the proper kind, and even with defence. What- 


106 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


ever is necessary for the conservation of the species 
comes under the control of that impulse, which we 
call instinct. 

When we come to consider the construction of 
living things we find food for endless wonder. Fish 
could not be better adapted for the water, nor birds 
for the air. In both instances form and organs are 
fitted for their purposes. So it is in the matter of 
gravity. Were fish heavier they would sink to the 
bottom, and stay there; were they lighter they could 
not penetrate it. So it is with animals and men: were 
they other than they are, earth could not be their 
dwelling-place. Here, however, fish, bird, beast and 
humans find health, nourishment and much happiness. 

Some evolutionist may say that this happens 
through the “ survival of the fittest.” But it is ob¬ 
vious that none would survive were they not from the 
beginning essentially as they are today. They would 
all have died were they not adapted from the start to 
their environment. 

When one comes to examine organs such as the eye 
or the ear, in man or in beast, purpose and plan be¬ 
come so evident that we find it hard to understand 
how any one could attribute such marvels of design 
to chance. An honest study of the human eye should 
prove a cure for atheism. I would recommend any 
of my readers, who may be disposed to see nothing 
but the operation of blind chance in the universe, to 
open some popular work on the organs of sense, sight, 
hearing, etc. If such a study do not prove a challenge 
to atheism and materialism, the evil is indeed securely 
entrenched. 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


107 


We see, therefore, in the heavens above us, in the 
earth beneath, in its waters, mines, vegetation—in¬ 
deed, everywhere and in everything—the most far- 
seeing design. We see it in field and flower and 
forest, in times and seasons. It is in the structure and 
instincts of animals. Tell me that all this came from 
the chance or the blind march of matter, and you 
make an impossible demand on my credulity. If all 
this does not imply a designer, it is idle to hope to 
attain to any knowledge. The most wonderful things 
may happen without a cause, and man’s effort to infer 
anything, to know anything, has not even a gambler’s 
chance. If the heavens do not show forth the glory 
of God, all human knowledge is not even good 
guessing. 

When, some years ago, the views associated with 
the name of Darwin became well known, many theists 
began to fear that, while other proofs of God’s exist¬ 
ence remained unshaken, the argument from design 
had lost considerable of its force. They have, how¬ 
ever, recovered their nerve, and now wonder why 
they should have been perturbed. In fact, it is at 
present generally recognized that evolution, in so far 
as we know it, but gives us a more sublime conception 
of the Great Designer. 

Assuming that the world about us has evolved from 
a mass of diffused matter, and has taken the shapes 
we now see, we naturally ask: what must be the 
power and wisdom that gave such resource and such 
guidance ? How great and intelligent must be the One 
Who endowed first matter with the power of differ¬ 
entiating itself so unerringly into the forms we see? 


108 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


To start the universe on its course, onward and up¬ 
ward, and to bestow upon its initial state the wisdom 
that has never for a moment abandoned it, is certainly 

an achievement worthv of a God. Who but God 

* 

could give, at the beginning, to the universe a direc¬ 
tion which, without change or amendment, remains 
with it yet, and will doubtless remain with it until 
the end? Evolution, then, properly understood, but 
gives us a more awe-inspiring view of Design and 
Designer. 


GOD, THE: DESIGNER 

By design I understand the determining of an end, 
which is to be attained by the use of definite means. 
I do not call this definition exhaustive, but I think it 
sufficient for our purpose. I might even leave the 
word undefined, because its meaning is clear. 

Design requires intelligence, knowledge of the end 
to be attained; knowledge of the means by which it 
may be attained. If I were asked to account for the 
wonderful structures of which birds and bees are the 
authors, I simply answer, there is intelligence some¬ 
where. Let this suffice for the present: I shall deal 
with the matter later. 

In this discussion I do not address myself to the 
professional objector, nor to the sophist, pettifogger 
or charlatan. The one whose business is to hide or 
deny the truth does not interest me. The appeal is to 
the honest common-sense of the average man, who 
has no axe to grind and no grudge against the 
Almighty. 

The average man, “ a boon in his might,” knows 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


109 


that when he comes across something that is not ex¬ 
plained by its surroundings, there is occasion for in¬ 
vestigating. Should the farmer, in tilling the soil, 
turn up an instrument such as he has not seen before, 
he examines it closely in order to discover its signifi¬ 
cance. If, as Paley says, the thing discovered be a 
watch and the farmer has never before seen such a 
piece of mechanism, his curiosity would be especially 
aroused. What brought the thing there? What its 
purpose? How constructed? The archaeologist who 
digs into ruins scrutinizes each discovery carefully. 
If something new or unusual turn up, he immediately 
tries to discover its purpose, and what age and what 
people were likely to produce and use such an instru¬ 
ment. In this way, wonderful light has been thrown 
upon prehistoric times and peoples. 

The ruins of Athens and of Rome are being investi¬ 
gated, the temples and pyramids of Egypt are being 
searched, in order that further light may be thrown 
upon the ancient peoples of these lands. When a 
lamp, a statue, or a temple is discovered, no one 
doubts but it is the work of human hands, and that 
it has been fashioned for a purpose. Syria and 
Assyria declare their ancient civilization to those who 
remove sand and debris from buried buildings. 
Everywhere there is design, and design to the honest 
mind speaks of a designer. Altars proclaim belief in 
a god, theatres speak of histrionic art, sculpture of 
gods or heroes; the mummies of some comprehension 
of immortality; and all proclaim the human intelli¬ 
gence and faith that inspired the fashioning of these 
things. The average man knows that a house declares 


110 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


human inhabitants, that a wall means separation or 
protection, that a citadel speaks of defence, that coin 
declares a degree of civilization. No honest man 
holds that a statue made itself, that a beautiful paint¬ 
ing came from the accidental spreading of oil, that a 
page of excellent literature arose from the fortuitous 
scattering of letters. Only the scientists can see that 
after a long period of the blowing about of letters, 
Homeric poems or Shakesperian dramas accidentally 
came into existence. No, the average intelligence 
looks for design in these things. It is to the average 
intelligence—not to sophisticated minds—I address 
myself in these pages. 

There can be no question but, whatever the profes¬ 
sional skeptic may say, the common sense of mankind 
sees purpose and design in the world about us. In fact, 
without the aid of sophistry, it is impossible to escape 
the conviction. From design we infer a designer. 

It may be well here to state that in order to prove 
the existence of a designer, it is not necessary that 
everything should show evidence of intelligent pur¬ 
pose. The studio of a noted artist may manifest 
much carelessness. The visitor who sees untidiness 
in many places may conclude that the workshop is 
very much on the haphazard order. But, when he 
comes face to face with the painting or statue, he is 
forced to confess to an intelligent purpose, and one 
even of a very high order. There is assuredly design, 
though it may not be seen everywhere. 

Again, it may happen that the artist has in his col¬ 
lection some works of inferior merit. How reconcile 
the masterpiece with that daub in oil, or monstrosity 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


111 


in marble. Easily enough. The artist did not intend 
the base production to be other than base, or perhaps 
he has not yet finished his work. There is another 
possibility: the critic may not be quite so intelligent 
as he thinks, or he does not understand the many 
purposes the artist may have in view. 

Similarly, in order to prove design in the universe, 
it is not necessary to show that everything manifests 
intelligent purpose; it is sufficient that some things, 
even that one thing, give unmistakable evidence that 
certain means were clearly used for a definite end. 
If we show that any part of the universe gives evi¬ 
dence that it is directed to a particular end, we show 
that intelligence has given the direction and has fore¬ 
seen the result. Should any one point to things that 
manifest no purpose, that appear defective, or the 
opposite of beneficent, we are able to answer that such 
a one may not be qualified to judge, that he does not 
and cannot see all the purposes the Creator may have 
in view, or, perhaps, that the work is incomplete; or, 
finally, that the great Designer did not plan the par¬ 
ticular thing to be perfect. Believers hold that God 
did not intend this world to be ideal, and that man’s 
free action has gravely interfered with such perfec¬ 
tion as it was intended to possess. Further, they 
assert, what must be obvious to any one, that the 
Creator’s dealings with the world are not always dis¬ 
closed ; nor have His relations with it come to an end. 
They would 1 , therefore, say to the critic of the divine 
plan: suspend judgment, wait and see if, to twist a 
common expression, the end will not justify the 
means. 


112 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


The atheistical evolutionist who sees an argument 
against the idea of a beneficent Creator in the 
wretched things we sometimes encounter in life should 
be wary in expressing his views. For he must re¬ 
member that his evolution is a blind force, which has 
no discretion, but must act in inexorable uniformity. 
It can no more do a thing well today and badly to¬ 
morrow, than the printing press can determine to take 
a day off, or occasionally render inferior work. So, 
whatever chance there is of having variety from an 
intelligent cause, there is nothing but a dead level 
from the evolutionary machine. 

I have already said that in order to prove a de¬ 
signer it is not necessary to show that all things are 
designed; it is but necessary to establish that there is 
design somewhere. I say this for the sake of argu¬ 
ment only; for, as a matter of fact, I believe that 
intelligent and beneficent design pervades the uni¬ 
verse. But we must come to particulars. 

This earth of ours, we are told, is subjected to two 
forces, one of which would send it like an arrow into 
space, the other would, if it could, plunge it into the 
fiery furnace that we call the sun. Either of these 
happenings would spell disaster. We are safe because 
neither of the forces will yield one iota. If either of 
them did, if either became relatively less or more than 
it is, the earth and its denizens would hurry to 
destruction. Not only this, but the whole solar sys¬ 
tem would be so disturbed that no one can imagine 
what might follow. We may even go further, and 
even suggest that, as there is possibly considerable 
sympathy between the entire universe and each part 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


113 


thereof, no created mind can conceive of what might 
happen if either force—tug or impulse—yielded a 
little. We are safe, the universe is safe, because of 
the uncompromising attitude of these two forces. 

Is this balance preserved by accident? Does it 
show no purpose? Is there neither intelligence nor 
beneficence behind it? Let any intelligent and fair- 
minded man or woman look at this one fact and then 
say that all this magnificent plan, which has been 
guiding the universe since the universe began, comes 
from a blind agency, or from chance. It were idle to 
reason with one who could make such an assertion. 

Instead of confining our thoughts to this insignifi¬ 
cant globe upon which we live, let our imagination 
expand to include the universe. There are millions of 
heavenly bodies,—some aglow with light, as our sun, 
some shining with borrowed light as our moon. 
These millions roam in space and mutually affect, and 
are affected by, one another. If any one of them 
should break loose from its moorings, what, think 
you, would happen? Compared to these in their 
number and magnitude, our earth is but a grain of 
sand on the sea-shore. And all these myriads of 
heavenly bodies observe law and order, as they have 
been observing it from their beginning; each traveling 
in its own orbit, sun, planets, satellites, comets, and 
meteors; each, by a necessity of its nature, refusing 
to interfere with the course of all others. Has blind 
force or chance done all this ? The man who believes 
in blind force or chance should, if he were consistent, 
be ever in dread of an all-embracing catastrophe. A 
menagerie let loose, a train of cars running wild, an 


114 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


earthquake or cyclone, would be a negligible trifle 
compared to the ever-abiding possibilities of a uni¬ 
verse governed otherwise than by an all-wise, all- 
powerful and beneficent being, such as we hold God 
to be. 


Earth's beauty witnesses to god 

It is not easy to imagine what one who has been 
locked up in a dungeon from infancy experiences 
when, on some blessed day, he is permitted to gaze 
upon this goodly earth of ours. We who enjoy lib¬ 
erty and daily communing with nature scarcely realize 
the beauty of our earthly habitation. 

As I write, on this charming spring day, I may gaze 
out the window and see a picture such as no artist can 
reproduce. The trees wear a garment of richest 
verdure; blossoms take on the most delicate tints, and 
birds revel in exuberant delight. It is hard to be 
sullen or churlish, pessimistic or atheistic today. 

The season will advance and richer colours will 
come. Pulsating summer will follow the charm of 
spring; and then autumn, with its rich glow, fulfilling 
the promise that May now gives. Winter, serious and 
majestic, follows. It speaks of death, but of a death 
that shall itself die, and be lost in resurrection. Each* 
season has its own charm, its own interest, its own 
hope. If we had but the innocence which was once 
ours, all our days would be full of joy. 

I would request the reader to gaze on the meadows 
in the spring, on the grain fields in the autumn, and 
ask himself if blind chance or stupid matter has 
evolved all this! Look at the mountain in its grand- 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


115 


eur, and at the ocean either in fury or in calm, and 
tell me if such glorious visions do not speak of the 
Lord of glory! 

I do not claim that the beauty of nature of itself 
proves the existence of God. That great verity is 
otherwise amply demonstrated. But, remember that 
the great First Cause has given us, among a multitude 
of other things, the beauty of the wild flower, the tint 
of the rose, the aroma of the garden, the majesty of 
the mountain, the calm repose of the placid lake, the 
song of the bird, the grandeur of the ocean. All this 
for man. If you will but admit the impression that 
the charm of nature must make upon every healthy 
mind functioning in a healthy body, can you have the 
hardihood, the ingratitude, to say that all this comes 
from slime or protoplasm operating upon itself? 
Nature witnesses to its God; only wicked man de¬ 
nies Him. 


conscience: witnesses to god 

There is in every human being a troublesome, rest¬ 
less, mysterious something which we call conscience. 
It may differ in minor matters, but substantially it is 
the same in all people. 

The minor differences come from education, train¬ 
ing, habit. The substantial thing comes from a source 
that is independent of us. Were not the source inde¬ 
pendent, we could stifle the troublesome voice; but 
our experience is that we cannot. 

We find this mysterious censor ever on the alert, 
and ever proclaiming its right to interfere. We re¬ 
solve to do something that suits our present mood, 


116 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


and cannot do any damage in the future. But this 
meddlesome pest says, “ You must not do it, for it is 
wrong.” We ask, “Why?” and the answer comes 
back, “ You must not do it, for it is wrong.” 

But we assert that it does not hurt any human 
being and that it is delightfully pleasing or profitable. 
The little tyrant yields not. He is inexorable. We 
may be able to bend friend or family to our purpose, 
but the silent dictator will not yield. 

Even though we have refused to listen to him in the 
past, even though we have more than once flouted his 
most solemn warning, he considers not his offended 
dignity, but stands upon his authority; he overlooks 
the contempt with which we have treated him and 
boldly speaks again in the most decisive manner. 

If we obey his command, if we refuse to do what 
he has forbidden, he comes to us with sweetest com¬ 
fort ; he brings us a peace and a happiness such as the 
world cannot give. If, however, we defy him and in 
spite of his warning do the wrong thing, he returns 
when it is over to scourge us with remorse. The 
spirit is merciless. He accepts no excuse, but flays 
and flays. If, in order to get away from the torment, 
we hurry to company or to dissipation, he watches 
our return, and when we are again alone he applies 
his scourge. All this, even though it may be shown 
that what we have done has brought no physical pain 
or injury to anyone. 

Whence is our tormentor ? What authority does he 
represent? Is he a torturing fiend whose mission is 
to make men miserable? 

He cannot be that, because he does not make the 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


117 


obedient miserable. His activities, his scourgings, are 
decidedly in the interest of righteousness. He is, 
then, not a fiend. Some one has called him “ The 
hound of heaven.” This he may be. But if there be 
no heaven, he cannot be its hound. 

This thing we call conscience, this restless dictator 
and tormentor who so categorically says, you must in 
one case, and you mast not in another, this imperious 
master who commands and forbids, rewards and pun¬ 
ishes, would have no meaning and could have no 
existence, if there were not a supreme Law Giver 
Whose voice he re-echoes. Like Pilate, he would 
have no authority unless it were given him from 
above. 

If, then, there be no God, conscience is a cruel 
bluffer, an evil genius, a villainous tyrant, that should 
be restricted and crushed. Yet, who would destroy 
that imperious voice? And who would care to do 
business with one who had destroyed it? What the 
world needs is not less conscience, but more; and 
what the world also needs is not less but more thought 
of God. God, speaking through conscience, is the 
remedy for our ills, and there is no other. 

Canvass all the expedients and all the isms and you 
will find your pursuit growing more and more hope¬ 
less, until you turn to God Who speaks through 
conscience. 

the general acceptance oe the belief 

It is idle to deny the universality of belief in a 
deity of some kind. It was with man in his most 
primitive state. It did not come from the tyranny of 


118 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


priest or king, for it antedates both priest and king. 
It exists today among all peoples, with only individ¬ 
uals here and there dissenting. 

Generally, too, the dissenting ones pay tribute to the 
belief by the uneasiness they manifest when the ques¬ 
tion is raised. They are of the kind that protest too 
much. Few of them regard the matter with such 
complete indifference, as, for instance, the average 
American will show when someone tells him that we 
are drifting towards monarchy. They seem rather to 
feel as one who is carrying off property that is not his 
own, and is constantly on the alert. It would, there¬ 
fore, appear either that they are not entirely con¬ 
vinced, or that they are doing violence to their minds 
and consciences in holding their views. 

How different it is with the theist! He manifests 
no uneasiness. He does not have to argue with him¬ 
self or others. He is in calm possession of what is 
his, and he clings more tenaciously to his conviction 
as the hour in which his belief will be put to the 
supreme test approaches. No one ever heard of a 
believer losing confidence in his faith when death 
threatens. If he should at that hour have misgivings 
at all, they will refer to his own conduct; and this 
implies the vivid conviction that he must soon meet 
his Judge. 

Belief in the existence of a Deity has often taken 
unworthy, indeed, sometimes degrading forms. To 
what extent this degradation affected men’s views of 
the supreme divinity in which most people believed, 
would constitute a long inquiry. Suffice it to say that, 
generally speaking, the deities that could be bribed to 


PROOFS OF GOD’S EXISTENCE 


119 


render unworthy service were of the inferior kind. 
The Great Spirit was beyond catering to human 
desire. 

Whence sprang this general, if not universal, belief 
in a God? Did it come from some primitive revela¬ 
tion or from a common impulse? The assertion that 
it was the invention of tyrants, who thus wished to 
dragoon men into obedience, is met by the well- 
established fact that belief in a god came prior to all 
tyrants and all tyranny. 

It was not born of convention; it existed before 
men learned to convene. It came, then, from a uni¬ 
versal impulse which must be part of human nature; 
or it came from some primitive revelation which af¬ 
fected the common ancestry of all. The probabilities 
are that it came from such revelation and found a 
ready acceptance in the minds of all, as all possessed 
a natural disposition to receive it. 

When it is said that reason unaided can come to 
the knowledge of God’s existence, the assertion is not 
intended to mean that each individual can reach the 
conviction. Nor is it asserted that the concept of 
God must not first come from without. The idea is, 
that men of intellect, after hearing of God, can, from 
consideration of the world about them, come to a 
certain knowledge of His existence. 

It may be that the argument from a universal con¬ 
viction does not establish the existence of God. But 
it will be admitted that universal agreement on any 
matter is phenomenal, being altogether exceptional. 
In nothing else is there such unanimity found. It 
would, hence, be strange indeed if all were deceived 


120 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


on the question. On the other hand, it must be ad¬ 
mitted that it is rash on the part of any one to contra¬ 
dict so universal a view. The world’s greatest and 
best held the belief. No one will deny that he who 
has so profoundly changed the face of the earth, 
Christ of Nazareth, was most outspoken in His con¬ 
viction of an all-ruling Deity. We may confidently 
ask what work of permanent value has been accom¬ 
plished by atheism? If you, dear reader, know of 
any, do tell us; tell us calmly and reasonably; we do 
not want the bluster in which atheism usually re¬ 
sponds. But, we are willing to consider facts no 
matter by whom presented. 

The universality of belief in a god or gods among 
the ancients is testified to by such authorities as 
Cicero, Plutarch and Plato. Their words on the mat¬ 
ter have been so often quoted that I do not deem it 
necessary to reproduce them here. Modem ethnolo¬ 
gists, with scarcely an exception, find that up to the 
present there is no people that have been found with¬ 
out religion in some form. Individuals may be athe¬ 
istic ; nations are not. 


X 


DIFFICULTIES 

some: born of our own weaknesses 

P ROOFS of God’s existence are superabundant. 
Indeed, the proof derived from the necessity 
of the First Cause is itself sufficient. No one 
capable of understanding this argument can fail to 
see that there must be a self-existing, necessary Being, 
capable of bringing into existence all that is. 

But, in order to understand the force of this proof, 
one must come to the consideration of it with an 
honest purpose of seeking the truth. Nothing short 
of this will do; yet alone it will not suffice. 

The reasoning is abstract, and, hence, requires some 
mental training. The average person is scarcely 
capable of grasping the full force of the argument, 
though it is compelling to those who are able to give 
it proper consideration. Hence, the majority of 
people accept God’s existence on the word of others. 
Indeed, it may be said that all believers, in the first 
instance, accept God on the testimony of parents or 
teachers. This does not, of course, prevent them, in 
after life, from examining the testimony which is 
offered in favour of the belief. The fact that one’s 
faith is from childhood does not forbid his ascertain¬ 
ing that in a series of causes there must be a first, and 
that this first must be equal to all the effects produced. 


121 


122 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


But to attain to the knowledge of God through a 
process of reasoning we must first have a willingness 
to accept Him, and also, to accept all that belief in 
His existence implies. Beyond this, we require the 
talent and the time necessary to reach the full force 
of the arguments. These two conditions are required, 
not only when belief is to> be attained, but also, when 
in after life, it may be threatened. It is clear, then, 
that the acceptance of the Deity is not so^ easy as the 
acceptance of the fact that two and two are four. 
For, first of all, if one be not willing to agree to the 
arithmetical question, his neighbours will soon insist 
that he change his attitude. If he wishes to live in 
human society he must, in practice, accept society’s 
methods of counting. Besides, the little problem in 
arithmetic is an obvious one; indeed, so obvious that 
one would have to be very insane to question it. We 
are not free to deny it. If the existence of God were 
as obvious, no one would dare to challenge it. Indeed, 
the acceptance of the Deity would be neither a free 
nor a meritorious act. But, as we have seen, the great 
question requires a proper attitude of mind, the neces¬ 
sary talent and due consideration. 

As bearing on the question of good will, it is gen¬ 
erally conceded that your personality enters largely 
into your beliefs. It is not, then, a matter of pure 
reason. The whole man believes or refuses to believe. 
Suspicious people hesitate or are fickle. Misan¬ 
thropes seldom see any good anywhere. Lawless 
minds instinctively question any principle that directly 
or indirectly imposes restraint. It is the man, not 
merely the mind, that is convinced. One person ac- 


DIFFICULTIES 


123 


cepts, another rejects; not because the arguments pre¬ 
sented are different, but because the men are. 

The chronic doubter, who must touch, measure, and 
count before accepting anything is a tantalizing fel¬ 
low. Few care for his company, and fewer are wil¬ 
ling to meet his unreasonable demands. His attitude 
would dissipate knowledge, ruin confidence, and make 
civilized existence impossible. Mankind lives and 
moves on moral certainty. We do not and cannot 
demand mathematical exactitude in the affairs of life. 

Let no one conclude from these remarks that I am 
apologizing for not being able to give clear demonstra¬ 
tion of the existence of God. Far from making such 
an apology, I am utterly convinced that His existence 
is so completely demonstrable that those who refuse 
to accept it are inexcusable. What I wish to affirm is 
that the arguments which prove His existence do not 
compel those who are unwilling to be convinced. In 
other words, the acceptance of God, though His exist¬ 
ence be proved to demonstration, is a free act, based 
on consideration and moral qualities; hence different 
from the acceptance of the truth that two and two 
are four. 

No matter how demonstrable a truth may be, if, 
with any appearance of justice, objections may be 
raised against it, men will be found to raise them. 
For instance, there is scarcely anything more certain 
than that the human will is free, generally speaking. 
Yet for centuries this great truth has been intermit¬ 
tently questioned. Indeed, able debaters have been 
found to deny it. Nor does the denial usually come 
from the uneducated. 


124 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


The doctrine of free will and the existence of God 
have this in common, that each imposes restraint. A 
personal God demands obedience, free will demands 
responsibility. No God, no restraint; no free will, no 
power of restraint. The denial of either makes for 
libertinism. While saying this, I do not wish to imply 
that atheists are all libertines. 

It is also obvious that the skilled dialectitian can 
give a complexion of his own to any question. The 
clever lawyer can argue on either side of the case. 
In fact, if he be not opposed by one of equal talent, 
the best cause may be made to suffer at his hands. 
The courts are all familiar with such happenings. 

Similarly, the adroit atheist or agnostic, versed in 
the language of his school, may easily bewilder by 
assertion, sophistry, and Greek derivatives, one less 
proficient in argumentation. It has been done in the 
past, and it is being done now. It is, however, a 
comfort to know, that while men of good will may 
not be able to answer the objector they are quite equal 
to the task of estimating him. If there are and have 
been men who deny the existence of God, there are 
and have been those who deny free will, the rights of 
conscience, parental authority, the authority of gov¬ 
ernment; indeed, men who are willing to deny the 
reality of anything, human or divine. 

HOW HARMONIZE EXISTING EVIR WITH GOD'S 

EXISTENCE 

Doleful stories are often told of the condition of 
earth, with its moral evil and the sufferings which 
afflict all sentient things. Unseemly conduct is every- 


DIFFICULTIES 


125 


where about; while man and animal are constantly the 
victims of untold misery. How can such a condition 
be reconciled with the existence of an all-powerful 
and beneficent Being? 

Let me at once admit the difficulty of the situation. 
We are not always able to explain, even to ourselves, 
why matters should be as they are. Things that hap¬ 
pen often puzzle us, and not infrequently we are 
forced to abandon the solution of the difficulty. But 
should this weaken our confidence in the existence of 
a good God ? Assuredly not. 

How often are we put to our wits’ ends to explain 
the conduct of a trusted friend? Yet, we would be 
unworthy, nay, incapable, of genuine friendship, if 
we allowed such a condition to shake our confidence. 
Can one claim to understand the entire situation? 
Are we sure that we have fathomed the deep, honest 
motives that a genuine friend may have for his con¬ 
duct? We must at least give him the benefit of the 
doubt, and await the time when an explanation will 
be forthcoming. This is especially true when we are 
not in his class; when, for instance, his wisdom tran¬ 
scends ours; or when he is engaged in a business or 
profession with which we are not familiar. How 
often have men who exercise authority been sus¬ 
pected of unreasonable conduct when, in fact, they 
were acting with the highest and wisest motives? 
History, when perhaps they had gone, justified their 
behaviour. 

If we may not judge hastily of men, whose capacity 
or duties are beyond our ken, why should we under¬ 
take to pass sentence on the work of the Great God ? 


126 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


What do we know of plans that are from and to 
eternity; that involve not only the whole earth, but 
the whole universe for all time? We ought to be a 
little diffident in the presence of such magnificence. 

If we grieve over the amount of sin and suffering 
which humanity endures, we ought to remember that 
of all the children of men the ones who have done 
most to destroy sin and to relieve suffering were 
among the most devoted of God’s children. They 
sacrificed themselves to help the fallen and the needy. 
All some others can do is to repine sullenly, and re¬ 
proach the great Creator. If you, dear reader, have 
not settled down into the helplessness and despair of 
atheism, bestir yourself, and find in the misery about 
you an opportunity for doing good. Instead of sit¬ 
ting in judgment upon God, win His gratitude by 
showing yourself truly devoted to your kind. 

It will help you in the path of humility—the only 
legitimate path for you or me—to remember how 
faulty is your judgment of the very things that you 
see and touch. If you so often fail in small matters, 
how can you hope to render just decisions in the 
things that affect the universe, or in the affairs of an 
eternal Being? So distrust yourself. But above all, 
do not pass hasty judgment on things that are beyond 
your capacity. If you are too ready to pass censure 
on your neighbour, you may be found to be a 
slanderer. 

God has not disclosed His entire plan to us. There 
are things that we cannot understand now. Let us 
use the knowledge we have and wait for further light. 
Things are working themselves out, through divine 


DIFFICULTIES 


127 


guidance, towards an end which we do not always see. 
The Ruler’s plan covers all time and all creation. We 
can see but little even of the things that transpire 
during our brief day. Believers hold that there will 
be a final day of reckoning when the finished plan 
will appear, and the justice of it be made manifest. 
Let us await it. 

Making due allowance for our want of knowledge, 
weakness of judgment, lack of proper disposition, 
and, it may be, prejudice, we may venture to approach 
in all humility the great subject. We are to inquire 
if the condition in which this world of ours finds 
itself argues against the existence of a beneficent God. 
There is moral evil, mental and physical suffering 
among men, torture and wretchedness in the animal 
world. Let us begin with moral evil. 

This form of evil can come only from a free being. 
The cruelties perpetrated by animals do not come 
under this head. Man alone can be the author of 
moral evil, which comes from the misuse or abuse of 
his freedom. God could be responsible for it only if 
He encouraged it, rewarded it, or, being in a position 
to do so, declined to punish it. I do not think that 
any sane person alleges the possibility of any one of 
these alternatives. 

God does not, of course, prevent moral evil except 
by threatening punishment. But is there any other 
remedy short of the destruction of free will? Destroy 
free will and you make men machines, that can neither 
win praise nor incur blame. Only free service can 
please or merit reward. If you take away free will in 
order to prevent sin, you prevent at the same time the 


128 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


practice of virtue, and eliminate all right to reward. 
Man then becomes to his God what the horse is to his 
owner, or a machine to its maker. He neither trans¬ 
gresses nor shuns transgression; but yields to a bent 
over which he has no control. Virtue and vice are 
both alien to him; he neither deserves punishment nor 
merits reward. Believers generally maintain that all 
material creation is brought into the service of the 
Creator through the intelligent and free action of 
man. If he be not free, there is no meritorious 
service on earth. If, then, the Almighty, in order to 
prevent moral evil, were to destroy man’s liberty, 
there would be no virtue, no worthy service, no 
reward. 

In attacking a position, it is but logical and fair to 
consider it in its totality. He would be a disingenuous 
opponent who, for the purpose of refuting a doctrine, 
would take it out of its setting, and separate it from 
the system of which it is a part. To be honest, one 
must meet the facts as they are. With this principle 
—which I think no one will dispute—in mind we shall 
proceed. 

It will be admitted that, while theism has innumer¬ 
able advocates everywhere, its chief protagonists are 
Christians. Now, Christians generally believe that 
the human family is not as God made it; but bears the 
effects of transgression. The belief that ours is a 
fallen nature is general, if not universal, with those 
who bear the name of Christ. Hence, it is held that 
the ills to which flesh is heir come not from Creation 
as God made it, but from man’s sin. If some one 
should say that God, if there be a God, should remedy 


DIFFICULTIES 


129 


this defect, he would imply, perhaps without knowing 
it, that the moral Governor of the universe should 
relieve free beings of the effects of their own conduct. 
This would be destructive of government. 

Another teaching maintained by those who pro¬ 
claim God. is that there is a life beyond the grave, a 
life which is eternal; therefore, one compared with 
which the present existence is but a moment. Any 
argument against theism, derived from human ills, 
that fails to take cognizance of this fact is negligible. 
For, it proceeds to pass sentence upon a belief, while 
ignoring the very things that justify the belief. It 
would be as reasonable to ridicule patriots for cheer¬ 
ing for a piece of cloth, ignoring the fact that the 
cloth represents the spirit of a nation. If you chal¬ 
lenge the attitude of those who believe in God, despite 
the existence of evil, you must not forget that they 
have faith in a future life. Most of them would say 
that the present life can be explained only on the 
supposition that there is another beyond the grave. 

Physical ills or sufferings are good for man. 
Trials bring out what is best in him. Ease, comfort, 
and indulgence are usually ruinous. They spell weak¬ 
ness, effeminacy, and decay. If indulgent parents 
spoil their children, as they often do, is it not because 
they desire to protect these children from all manner 
of hardship ? And if the Creator always shielded us, 
He would not only take from us the things that make 
us strong and resolute, but would doom us to a weak, 
inglorious existence—an existence that could end only 
in disaster. 

Further, if God always came to our aid in time of 


130 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


trial we would grow careless and improvident. Why 
should we, especially those of us who are not am¬ 
bitious, trouble ourselves about the future, about the 
danger of being homeless or hungry in our old age, if 
God always came to the rescue of human suffering. 
A little consideration will show that too great tender¬ 
ness, no matter what its source, is ruinous. 

Hence, I conclude that no one who is familiar with 
Christian teaching regarding human destiny, can for 
a moment invoke the existence of moral evil, or the 
sufferings to which human beings are subjected, as an 
argument against the existence of a wise, beneficent, 
and all-powerful Being, whom we call God. 

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT 

The doctrine of eternal punishment has often been 
used as the basis of an argument against the existence 
of God. The objection gains force from a consider¬ 
ation of extreme views once held by some Christians 
upon the question of predestination, and its opposite, 
reprobation. 

But first of all it may be said that no teaching about 
punishment can be adduced as an argument against 
God’s existence, though erroneous doctrine may well 
be made to tell against His justice and mercy. Ex¬ 
treme views about predestination and reprobation 
come under this head. But such views could never 
be regarded as general Christian teaching; and, 
further, they are now generally abandoned by the 
sects that at one time held them. 

But, even apart from predestination and reproba¬ 
tion, eternal punishment is now without its difficulties. 


DIFFICULTIES 


131 


We all approach the subject with considerable anx¬ 
iety. Not, indeed, that we doubt a doctrine so em¬ 
phasized in sacred Scriptures, but we must necessarily 
have considerable misgivings about our ability to un¬ 
derstand and explain it. 

It is some comfort to know that the most firm 
believers in God, as well as the ablest writers in the 
Christian Church, have accepted the doctrine whole¬ 
heartedly. Nor have they seen in it any argument 
against the existence or perfections of God. On the 
contrary, they have maintained that He is just and 
merciful even when He punishes. 

As the question of future punishment depends upon 

ERRATUM "t 

The last two lines on page 130 should ;n 
read: “ But, even apart from predestination a 
and reprobation, eternal punishment is not 
without its difficulties.” 

with certainty how many are actually doomed to eter¬ 
nal punishment; nor can any one presume to define 
what, apart from the loss of God, the degree of 
punishment really is. The Christian, however, will 
be fearless in saying that it is always less than is 
deserved. So that the Divine mercy is manifested 
ever. 

Further, we maintain that the dread punishment is 
inflicted only on those who have deliberately—with 
full knowledge and complete consent—separated 
themselves from God. If they lose Him it is because 
they have cast Him away. This loss, which according 
to all Christian teaching is the greatest punishment of 


132 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


the damned, is of their own choosing-; and the choos¬ 
ing must be the deliberate act of a mind in full pos¬ 
session of its faculties. 

Moreover, while the Christian does not deny that 
one’s life may terminate immediately after the re¬ 
jection of the Deity, still it usually happens that 
many overtures come to the sinner from the offended 
Majesty of God. Hence, we are enabled to infer that 
generally speaking the lost are those, who, having de¬ 
liberately separated themselves from God, have re¬ 
fused many offers of reconciliation. Some will say 
that if sinners were told that they must die soon they 
would hasten to repent. Perhaps. But would this 
necessarily be an abandonment of sin, or would it be 
an effort to escape sin’s punishment? In any event, 
if God gave warning to the sinners other than, “ Be 
ye always prepared,” it is quite possible that many, 
confident of being given time for repentance, would 
continue in their evil course until the dread notifica¬ 
tion had come. The plan would be an encouragement 
of sin, and the destruction of the moral government 
of the world. 

But, some one will say, why create those whom the 
Creator knows will be damned. Very plausible, in¬ 
deed, but only for a moment. 

The policy would demand that the Creator should 
work a miracle, a frustrative miracle, to prevent the 
coming into the world of those whom He foreknew 
would, by abusing the faculties given them, forfeit 
their right to happiness. What claim can any one 
have to such interference with the laws of nature? 
A miracle is demanded that the wicked may be saved 


DIFFICULTIES 


133 


the consequences of their wickedness! But this is 
not all. 

Is it not possible that even from wicked ancestors, 
saints may spring? We find sinners in Christ’s 
genealogical tree. Humanly speaking they were 
necessary in order that the Saviour might be 
born. Are we to ask that the great God should 
cut off posterity in order to prevent the punishment 
of a deliberate transgressor? But there are other 
reasons. 

Suppose the divine plan were that those who, it was 
foreseen, would bring damnation upon themselves 
were prevented from coming into existence, then all 
who come into existence would know that they will 
ultimately be saved, no matter what they may do. 
Would not this again mean the destruction of the 
moral order? Why try to control passion when we 
are sure that all will come right in the end? The 
moral law would have lost its sanction. 

Another consequence of doing away with eternal 
punishment would be the doing away with eternal 
reward. No hell, no heaven. Or would you send all 
men, independent of their merits or their crimes, to 
heaven ? A queer heaven it would be, scarcely fit for 
decent folks. 

But, you say, punish them for a while, for years or 
for ages; enlarge the scope of purgatory. After they 
are sufficiently punished, and sufficiently purified, 
bring them to heaven. 

The Christian answers that they are never suffi¬ 
ciently purified, their sins being of such malice. And 
further, their mental attitude towards God has not 


134 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


changed one iota. There is no repentance beyond the 
grave. 

If, after thousands or millions of years, they could 
enter the kingdom of heaven, they would have yet a 
never-ending happiness. Hence, despite the fact that 
they had sinned grievously and had not repented, in¬ 
deed had not changed, they would still enjoy eternally 
the things that God has prepared for those who love 
Him. Their punishment would bear no proportion to 
the rewards in store for them. Hence, again, a 
breaking down of the moral government of the world. 

But why not kill the soul? Only God can kill a 
spiritual substance endowed as it is with immortality. 
And He is asked to destroy that to which He gave 
undying life in order to save one from an end which 
he had deliberately chosen for Himself. It would 
certainly be more reasonable to ask Him to kill it 
before it had transgressed. However, the objection 
reminds us of a criminal who tries suicide in order to 
escape the gallows. 

So, a calm and intelligent view of eternal punish¬ 
ment, instead of being an argument against the ac¬ 
ceptance of God, only makes the theistic position 
stronger. 

THE SUFFERINGS OF ANIMALS 

I approach this subject with a little diffidence, 
though without a doubt. Difficulties do not necessar¬ 
ily make doubts. 

Animals do suffer much; and it does not seem that 
there is for them an hereafter in which compensation 
may be made. Therefore, one naturally asks, what 


DIFFICULTIES 


135 


is the purpose of the sufferings which they are obliged 
to endure? 

I may not be able to give a convincing answer; but 
the theist will say that my inability arises from the 
fact that I do not know the mind of the Creator. If I 
could but see His purpose, which is not yet revealed, 
matters would be different. But His plan is not com¬ 
plete, neither is it disclosed. The universe is still 
progressing towards some goal, which, when attained 
and manifest, will justify all that has happened and 
all that will happen. 

Besides, it is very likely that animals do not suffer 
so much as we suppose. We are prone to interpret 
the animal in the language of our feelings. We pre¬ 
sume that he suffers as we would suffer in similar 
circumstances. This is hardly the case. He is with¬ 
out dread of the future—the thing that causes most 
of our troubles. Some one has said that “ a coward 
dies a thousand times, and a brave man but once.” 
Fear makes the difference. The animal is not brave, 
but he is without knowledge of impending evil. 
When his enemy is out of sight, fear of him ceases. 
The thought of what may happen, and the memory 
of what has happened, mental states so troublesome 
to man, do not bother the animal at all. Moreover, 
he does not suffer as we in our tenderness think he 
does. A strong man, accustomed to hardship, does 
not suffer pain, either physically or mentally, as does 
his delicate brother. If this be so, as it is, why may 
we not conclude that the animal suffers much less 
than either? 

It is said that even in great accidents men do not at 


136 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


first suffer much. They are rather stunned. The 
suffering, if they survive, comes later. When one 
animal is attacked by another, or by man, he is very 
likely bewildered into insensibility. The agony, such 
as it is, is usually not prolonged; for as a rule death 
soon follows. 

Yet, we must admit that there is suffering. But we 
must also remember that there seems to be a sort of 
income tax on all possessions, natural or acquired. 
Every living thing pays something on its possessions. 
Property, family, health, good name, friendship, etc., 
all exact this toll. 

The animal life is on the whole a happy one. Ani¬ 
mals enjoy much, and their enjoyment is, while it 
lasts, unalloyed. Without memory of past hardships, 
without misgiving about the present or dread of the 
future, while life and health and plenty remain, their 
enjoyment is complete. In fact, there are those who 
maintain that their existence would be far happier 
than that of man, if as atheists say, there is no future 
life. 

Evolutionists all claim that there is constant prog¬ 
ress from lower to higher forms. If, then, the lower 
is subservient to the higher, if, in fact, it must make 
way for the higher, this is but what evolution de¬ 
mands. It is hard, then, to see how the evolutionist 
can shed tears when the lower form is made to serve 
the higher, even when the former becomes the prey 
of the latter. 

The Christian theist holds that the animal creation 
is not what God intended it to be. For, it has suf¬ 
fered through primal transgression. St. Paul gives 


DIFFICULTIES 


137 


expression to the view when he says that “ the crea¬ 
ture was made subject to vanity not willingly,” and 
that “ the creature itself shall be delivered from the 
servitude of corruption.” (Romans viii :21 and ff.) 
All creation feels the taint of sin. 

It is rash presumption in man to assume that he 
can discover the design or purpose of the Creator. It 
is even worse to attempt to sit in judgment upon His 
providence. We are not to judge, but to be judged. 
Our position, our weakness, our ignorance, if we only 
realize these as they are, ought to make us humble. 
We, who regulate ourselves so indifferently, ought 
not to presume to regulate the universe, or measure 
with our little tape plans that reach from an eternal 
past to an eternal future. 

How do we know what good purpose the suffer¬ 
ings of animals may serve? They are our servants, 
not our equals. We have requisitioned them in our 
work, in our ambitions, in our wars, in the advance¬ 
ment of science. Their sufferings teach us much, 
teach us to be kind, to be provident; they show us 
how to relieve human ills. It is also worthy of re¬ 
mark that those who have shown most tenderness to 
animals were not atheists, but Christians. Francis 
of Assisi pleaded that the hungry beast (which he 
called brother wolf), that had been prowling about, 
should be fed. He did not see in the sufferings of 
animals an argument against the existence of God. 

It has been said that if animals did not suffer, if all 
survived, they would increase so fast that there would 
not be room on earth or support for all of them. 
Others may reply that God, if there be a God, should 


138 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


have provided against this possibility. It is not diffi¬ 
cult to see what this would mean; it would demand 
constant interference, miraculous interference, with 
both men and animals. It would require that when 
the bird is about to pounce upon the worm, the Al¬ 
mighty should hold it back; and that when you go out 
to shoot rabbits the same power should strike the gun 
from your hands. Slaughter houses should be razed 
to the ground, and the cattle cars burned up by divine 
indignation! 

The one who sees in the sufferings of animals an 
argument against the existence of God is easily 
convinced! 

Individual suffering is necessary to the survival of 
the species. If there were no pangs of hunger there 
would be no hunting for food; no suffering from the 
attacks of enemies, no effort to escape or defend. 
This would mean the decay or death of the animal 
world. So, the possible suffering which may at any 
time become actual, is necessary to the continued ex¬ 
istence of animal life. 

If animals were not permitted to suffer they could 
not be our servants. For at the very moment we need 
them most, the power that is expected to pity them 
might step in to relieve them of their burden. The 
horseman could never be certain that his steed would 
be permitted to take him to his destination. Were the 
Creator to prevent animal suffering, human life would 
become so uncertain that it would be a nuisance. We 
could undertake nothing until we had first ascertained 
that in our efforts we would inflict no pain on any 
member of the animal kingdom. 


DIFFICULTIES 


139 


So, it would appear that the sufferings of animals, 
instead of being an argument against the existence of 
God, when properly understood, only adds to the over¬ 
whelming evidence in favour of the reality of an all¬ 
wise, all-powerful Ruler of the Universe. 

I cannot hope to change the views of those who love 
to shed tears over “ Nature red in tooth and claw.” 
No blindness equals that of those who will not see. 
Yielding to an unnatural animosity towards their 
Creator, they seek to discredit His work. They fasten 
upon any and every apparent flaw in the world about 
them, and refuse to consider explanations. If they 
would but nourish their grudges in silence they might 
be regarded as negligible. But they insist upon propa¬ 
gating their doctrine of despair among the ignorant 
and the weak. 


XI 


THEISM VERSUS ATHEISM 

B Y theism I understand a system that accepts a 
personal God, Who, in His infinite power and 
wisdom, freely called into being whatever 
there is that is not Himself. By atheism I understand 
a denial of all this. It is a system that claims to 
explain all there is without being obliged to invoke 
the aid of a personal God. In our day, atheism 
usually appeals to evolution, which it regards, not 
merely as a method, but as an agency. 

We of the old school ask the new claimant to divine 
honours to justify its attitude, by explaining some 
very important questions. We ask it, “ whence is 
matter ” ? and we receive the answer: “ Matter is its 
own source, for it is eternal.” 

We are not surprised at the answer, for it is the 
only one that atheism can give without stultifying 
itself. If matter be not eternal it must have come into 
being through the operation of an agency other than 
matter. To admit this would be to come dangerously 
near to theism. So to defend the eternity of matter 
is a question of life or death with atheistic evolution. 

Nor will it do to claim an eternity improperly so- 
called. Could it be shown that matter is so old that 
fabulous figures are necessary to indicate its plenitude 
of years, or that its beginning is lost in the twilight of 
a remote past, this would not suffice. We must be 


140 


THEISM VERSUS ATHEISM 


141 


shown that it had no beginning. For if it had a be¬ 
ginning at any time, whether quadrillions or sex- 
tillions of years ago, it must have had something to 
bring it into being, even as it would need the some¬ 
thing were yesterday its natal day. We have already 
seen that years of themselves accomplish nothing. So, 
therefore, if matter be not created, it must be self- 
existing and eternal in the strictest sense of the word. 

We ask evolutionists for proof that it is eternal, and 
the only argument they give us is this: Either it is 
eternal or it is created. It is not created, therefore it 
is eternal. That this is a pure begging of the question 
is obvious to any one. The contention is this: We have 
taken the position that there is no creator, and this 
position requires that we declare matter to be eternal. 
Therefore, it is eternal. We cannot prove that it is so, 
but our needs require that it should be so. We must 
abandon our system or insist that matter is eternal 

Atheism does not attempt to show that its conten¬ 
tion is true, though naturally the burden of proof is 
upon it. We, however, hope to show not only that 
the eternity of matter cannot be demonstrated, but 
that the very opposite is demonstrable. 

The eternal must be self-existing and independent, 
therefore, unchangeable. If there be anything abso¬ 
lutely certain about matter it is this: it is neither in¬ 
dependent nor unchangeable. The evolutionist will 
admit that it can be kicked about, made to take differ¬ 
ent shapes and serve different purposes; in fact, that 
it is always changing. It has gone through a series 
of conditions; a long series, no doubt. But no series 
can by any possibility imply eternity. For there is no 


142 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


series to which you may not add one. Hence, if a 
series could be eternal we would have the eternal plus 
one, which is an absurdity. 

Nor can matter be eternal in the sense of indefinite 
time. For, as elsewhere shown, if it had seen the un¬ 
told ages that even this imperfect conception of 
eternity gives, it would have gone through all changes, 
which it is alleged to have gone through, myriads of 
years ago. But the facts are that some of its changes 
are recent. So matter cannot be eternal either in the 
perfect or imperfect sense. 

I charge, then, atheism with being unable to account 
for the beginning of things, except on principles that 
are impossible and absurd. It is, therefore, utterly in 
error on a most important question; a question that 
must be answered correctly before any progress is 
made. 

Again, we see matter everywhere in motion, and we 
know that it could not put itself in motion. What 
moved it? Whatever moved it must be outside itself, 
and must be capable of putting the universe in mo¬ 
tion. There is no other alternative. But atheism can¬ 
not tell what this prime mover is. Indeed, it must 
insist that there is no such prime mover. Hence, it 
demands motion without a mover, and hence scores 
another absurdity. 

If it should answer that motion belongs to matter 
we would reply, then all matter must be in motion. 
But we know it is not. Also, if motion belong of 
necessity to matter and matter is eternal its move¬ 
ments to date should all be over long ages ago: for 
obviously matter is not infinite, but limited. 


THEISM VERSUS ATHEISM 


143 


Another difficulty which atheism has to meet arises 
from the obvious fact that there is life upon earth. 
Was it always here? No. Even atheistic science 

/ 

admits and asserts that our earth was at one time in 
such condition that life of any kind could not exist 
upon it. Now it teems with exuberant life. What 
brought about the change? Can atheism account for 
it? It cannot, but it expresses a hope that some day 
it will. On the strength of this promise it demands 
our allegiance. What nonsense! 

And as atheistic science cannot account for life, 
even in the lowest form, it certainly cannot explain 
how inert matter gave being to the human intellect. 

When we consider the spiritual element in man, we 
come in contact with the greatest marvel with which 
we can make ourselves familiar. It transcends all 
material things, and approaches the confines of the 
infinite. Not only can we form mental images of the 
things we have seen, but we have some understanding 
of things invisible. We can encompass the earth, or 
take our flight to the stars. Can atheism account for 
the wonderful range of the human mind? No sane 
man, unobsessed by the resolve to dismiss God, could 
for a moment think so. 

But there is another faculty of the human mind 
equally marvelous. We know we can exercise free 
will, at least, sometimes. We can do good or evil, we 
can bend ourselves to the performance of disagreeable 
things. Does matter convey this power of choice? 
We know that matter can work but in one way in a 
given situation. Its course is determined. But we 
can decide what we shall do. Can atheism explain 


144 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


this? Most assuredly it cannot. It fails once more 
on a very important question. 

We are all aware of the existence within us of a 
silent monitor we call conscience. There is no one 
without it; though it is not so outspoken or so authori¬ 
tative in some as in others. Its existence and merit 
are so widely recognized that were it said of any man 
that he was without conscience, few would care to 
trust him. 

The business of this censor is to bring home to each 
one what is to be done and what avoided, at each 
moment. It commands and forbids, approves and dis¬ 
approves. Should we defy its mandates, it pursues 
us with remorse. We cannot rid ourselves of it. 
Nor does any upright man desire to be relieved of it. 
For its commands and prohibitions are always in the 
interest of righteousness. 

Ask atheism whence is this censor of morals, and 
it can give you no answer. It may chatter a little 
about hereditary and training, which may doubtless 
account for the quality of conscience. But no con¬ 
sideration or agency that the atheist can invoke will 
account for that universal, silent voice, whose author¬ 
ity is so potent, and whose influence no honest man 
would diminish. If there be no God, Whose voice it 
echoes, there is no accounting for conscience. Hence, 
we have another far-reaching fact of human experi¬ 
ence for which atheism has no explanation. 

It will also be admitted that there is a universal 
conviction of the validity of what is called the moral 
law, which does not come from any human enact¬ 
ment, and does not depend upon any consideration of 


THEISM VERSUS ATHEISM 


145 


utility. This law goes with us wherever we go. Ask 
atheism whence is it, and atheism remains dumb. 
Who enacted that law? Atheism does not know. 

But if we do not know who enacted it, and if we 

do not know that he who enacted it has jurisdiction 

over us, what do we care about it? A law made by 

the Shah of Persia would not concern us much. 

« 

Men who believe not in God may respect the moral 
law. We would advise them to do so. But, apart 
from expediency or convention, there is absolutely no 
reason why they should; especially, why they should 
regard it as of obligation. It comes not from any 
human legislator, but from God; and if there be no 
God, there is no moral law. 

Again, presuming that there could be a law without 
a law-giver, and that, despite the non-existence of 
God, the moral law could be regarded as binding, 
there would still be lacking a necessary condition of 
all law, sanction. Without God there would be no 
means of punishing the violation of the moral law, or 
rewarding obedience to it. This, I say on the as¬ 
sumption that the laws of health and prudence are not 
violated with the moral law: and I believe it easy to 
show that one may transgress against the recognized 
moral code for years, without incurring the penalties 
visited upon those who violate the code of health or 
the code which society imposes upon itself. 

Atheism is utterly unable to account for the moral 
law, either as imposing penalties or conferring re¬ 
wards. The one who transgresses goes unpunished, 
and the hero who dies in defence of right receives no 
compensation from atheism. 


146 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


When we come to consider orderly existence, and 
the design which is everywhere apparent, we find 
materialistic philosophy again staring blankly. In its 
effort to save its face, it points to some few things in 
which design is not so manifest, and thus endeavours 
to divert attention from the wonderful purpose to 
which nature everywhere testifies. It does this be¬ 
cause it cannot answer the questions a reasonable man 
may ask it. It cannot pretend to tell the origin of the 
marvelous intelligence seen in the heavens above and 
in the earth beneath. Atheism is stupid and voiceless 
when any question of importance is put. It is silent 
on everything that the inquiring mind would like to 
know. And, yet, it has the hardihood to pit its igno¬ 
rance or nescience against the views of men in all 
ages, against the convictions upon which our civiliza¬ 
tion is based, upon which Christianity is builded, 
views held and proclaimed by the great men of all 
ages, including Christ of Nazareth. It is not ashamed 
to assert, though it makes no effort to explain. It 
clings to doctrine for which there is no defence. We 
put to it question after question and we get no answer. 
We raise a dozen difficulties and it solves not one of 
them. Did theism show such incapacity in meeting 
any one of these difficulties as atheism shows in meet¬ 
ing each of them, I would cease to be a theist. 

This is but a part of the case against atheism, and 
its step-sister agnosticism. They answer no ques¬ 
tions, but rely upon repeated assertion. They build 
up nothing, but tear down all that men prize. They 
give no comfort, but are fruitful of gloom and 
despair. 


XII 


DOES THEISM ANSWER? 


I T says “ in the beginning God created heaven and 
earth.” An Eternal, self-existing Being decreed 
in eternity to create material things in time. As 
He was infinite in power, He was able to call forth, 
according to His design, things that had no previous 
existence in any form. 

In process of time, matter evolved itself under His 
guidance, or by virtue of the forces which He in the 
beginning imparted to it. The solar system and the 
other systems were formed according to this law. The 
law, which was really a force, coming from the Cre¬ 
ator, not only gave the heavenly bodies their distinct¬ 
ive existence, but gave them a destiny which they must 
attain. It gave limits to each in order that in pursuing 
its course it might help, not hinder, any other. A mar¬ 
velous plan coming from a mind of infinite wisdom! 
A plan, too, which, beginning with the beginning, has 
been regulating all things up to the present, and which 
we are confident will regulate them to the end. 

When this earth of ours became fit to receive life, 
the Creator gave it life. The higher forms either 
came directly from Him, or developed under His in¬ 
fluence and guidance from lower conditions. The 
process continued until earth was prepared to receive 
the lord of creation, man, whom the Creator made to 
His own image and likeness. 


147 


148 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


This lord of creation was an epitome of creation, 
possessing matter, vegetable and animal life, and also 
the life we call spiritual. 

The Creator gave man a destiny which he is to 
attain by observance of the moral law. Man was also 
given intelligence that he might know the law. He 
was given freedom that he might be able to render 
free obedience. He was given conscience that law 
might be always present to him. Rewards were 
promised, penalties threatened, that man might be 
encouraged to use his freedom righteously, and might 
be deterred from transgression. But nothing was per¬ 
mitted to interfere with his freedom. For God in¬ 
tended that man’s service should be honourable to his 
Creator, and meritorious to himself. Hence it must 
be free. Infinite wisdom planned and infinite power 
accomplished. So, in the theistic system, God is all in 
all, the beginning and the end of all things. 

This theory explains everything; no other theory 
explains anything. The difficulties that may be ad¬ 
vanced against it are negligible; are in fact born of 
our mental limitations. The Christian theist can 
readily explain human sufferings, even eternal punish¬ 
ment, and can show that all is consistent with an ac¬ 
ceptance of an all-wise and beneficent God. 

Even the sufferings of animals can be explained; 
though it would be presumption in us to claim that we 
are cognizant with all God’s plans, as it would be 
impious to take the stand that if we cannot under¬ 
stand all we will not believe. “ Blessed are they that 
have not seen and have believed.” A true and tried 
friend demands that we do not forsake him even 


DOES THEISM ANSWER? 


149 


though, for the moment, we do not understand all he 
does or says. If all things were plain there would be 
little merit in clinging to the cause. 

Here, then, is an intelligent and free Being, the 
Author of all intelligence and freedom, Who, Himself 
eternal and uncreated, for His own wise purposes, 
called matter into existence; gave it laws that govern 
it in all its movements; gave it life in all its forms, 
and imparted to the world of animal existence the 
impulse or instinct which preserves each species. We 
are also willing to concede that He bestowed upon 
them the power of improving their condition in 
favourable surroundings. 

Here, then, is the Creator of matter, the Author of 
life, the Designer of the universe in all its movements, 
the Giver of intelligence and liberty, the Authority 
back of conscience, the Source of law with its sanc¬ 
tion of rewards and punishments; the Beginning and 
End of all things; the Eternal, Omnipotent and All¬ 
wise God. He explains all, atheism explains nothing. 

Whence, then, is the power of atheism ? We have al¬ 
ready expressed our opinion. We think it comes from 
thoughtlessness, from bravado, from the influence of 
others, from lack of training, from erroneous views of 
God. But its main strength lies in the fact that it im¬ 
poses no obligation. If a stranger pass your door and 
ask nothing of you, you have no right to question him. 

Atheism asks nothing from us. In fact, it relieves 
us of what to many is a heavy burden—obedience to 
law, submission to the Divine Will, judgment, pen¬ 
alty. It is safe to say that if atheism were as exacting 
as theism is, there would be few atheists. 


XIII 


WHAT IS GOD? 

W E have already seen that a First Cause, which 
we call God, is absolutely necessary. If there 
were no first cause there would never be 
anything; for, putting it in another way, if there were 
no first cause itself uncaused, all that is would be an 
effect, which implies an absurdity. An effect pre¬ 
supposes a cause. 

Seeing, then, that there is a First Cause, we ask: 
what is it? We already know it is powerful enough 
to call the universe into being, and intelligent enough 
to give guidance to all creation for all time. This 
much we have seen, and this much we must admit, 
unless we are willing to give up the pursuit of 
knowledge. 

We have also seen that the First Cause is a Person; 
which means that it is a complete and intelligent Be¬ 
ing. Only a complete and intelligent being is a per¬ 
son. A horse is not a person for, though complete, it 
has not the necessary intelligence. The First Cause is 
complete in itself and is also intelligent—indeed the 
source of all intelligence. Hence It is a person. 

The First Cause is eternal in the strictest sense of 
the word. For, were it not eternal it would need 
something to bring it into being. So, back of the 


150 





WHAT IS GOD? 


151 


First Cause we would have a cause, which again is an 
absurdity. As it is eternal and uncaused, it is self- 
existing. It is necessary being. It could not not be. 
Its nature is to exist. It is, of necessity, actual being. 

The First Cause is simple, which means that it is 
uncomposed. Were it composed it would be neces¬ 
sary that its component parts should have existed 
before it. It would be the product of these, hence, 
not the First Cause. Also it would imply that the 
Infinite is made of finite things, another absurdity. 

As it is not composed, it is immortal. Death comes 
from dissolution, a resolving into component parts. 
We die through the separation of the spirit from the 
body. As there is no composition in the First Cause, 
death can claim no dominion over it. The First Cause 
is immortal in Its own right. The human soul is im¬ 
mortal because the First Cause had made it unto the 
likeness of Itself. Of course, its immortality is differ¬ 
ent from that of the First Cause. 

The First Cause possesses all perfections in an in¬ 
finite degree. Nothing is wanting to It. Only 
through It are perfections possible. It is all-wise, all¬ 
holy, all-powerful. It can create: in fact, can bring 
into being anything that does not involve a contra¬ 
diction—anything that is not absurd. 

The attribute of immensity or ubiquity belongs to 
the First Cause. Not that it is extended as material 
things are extended. Hence, we can not visualize the 
immensity of the First Cause. But we know It is 
everywhere, not only in power but in essence; not 
only in part, but in Its totality. This may be difficult 
to understand, because of our tendency to demand 


152 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


mental images as an aid to knowledge. Spiritual 
things do not leave images on the brain. 

The First Cause is unchangeable. Change of local¬ 
ity implies motion, which of course belongs to ma¬ 
terial things, and the First Cause is not material. 
Besides, the First Cause has the virtue of immensity 
or ubiquity which precludes motion. Change might 
also come from the acquisition of some virtue or 
some degree thereof. But the First Cause can acquire 
neither, for It has all virtues in an infinite degree. 
Nor will any one suppose that It can lose a perfection, 
or suffer a diminution of a perfection. 

The First Cause is all-good. Evil is not, as Dual¬ 
ism would have it, a positive thing. It is the absence 
of good where good ought to be. 

The First Cause is all-just. We have already seen 
that the Moral Ruler of the world must be all-just. 
But before the world came into being, the First Cause 
was in all Its perfections, hence all-just. 

The First Cause is all-merciful. Should a difficulty 
spring up in reconciling justice and mercy, the Chris¬ 
tian apologist has a complete explanation. Christ 
satisfied all justice and purchased for us all mercy. 
It is not necessary to go beyond this, or to enter into 
an elaborate dissertation upon the subject. 

So all perfections belong to an infinite degree to 
the First Cause, whatever seems to connote imper¬ 
fection, as when it is said that God’s anger is en¬ 
kindled, that He meditates revenge, or when it is said 
of Him “ that He was, and is, and is to come/’ the 
writer is but addressing himself to our intelligence, or 
speaking to us in a human manner. As a matter of 


WHAT IS GOD? 


153 


fact, the First Cause is not stirred by emotion, either 
of anger or of tenderness. If It punish, It does so in 
perfect calm; if It show mercy there is no human 
weakness in the act. The Great First Cause is always 
God-like. 

In speaking of the Divine perfections, we must not 
suppose them separate attributes of the Divine nature. 
We must not think that God forgets His infinite 
mercy when He contemplates His justice, or that His 
power in any way differs from His goodness. We, 
in order to understand, have to consider each per¬ 
fection apart. But in God there is nothing apart. 
His goodness, holiness, justice, mercy, power, ubiq¬ 
uity, eternity, etc., all are one; and these perfections 
all belong inseparably to the Divine nature or es¬ 
sence; and the Divine nature is one with the Divine 
Existence. There is no composition in the First 
Cause. Essence, existence, attribute, all are one in 
that Eternal, Infinite, Perfect Being. 


XIV 


HAPPINESS IN BELIEVING 

O NCE more I use the word belief in the broad 
sense, that is, for the acceptance of God, 
whether one’s conviction come from faith 
properly so-called, or from reason. There is, I think, 
happiness in each; though, of course, supernatural 
faith of which Christians speak is the more efficacious. 

An army officer whose discipline is strict, and who 
demands much of his men, often provokes them by 
what they call unnecessary restraint, or too much at¬ 
tention to drilling. But, when the day of trial comes, 
they, if they have sense, will thank him for the con¬ 
dition of preparedness in which they find themselves. 
Owing to his insistence they now find themselves in 
every sense fit. 

Similarly, men engaged in some pursuit, which they 
would like to follow in their own way, chafe under 
the restraints imposed upon them by belief in a per¬ 
sonal God. But, when the day of trial comes to them, 
when sickness or adversity tames their proud spirits, 
and when they are inclined to sink under the weight 
of their burdens, how happy they will be to think that 
they do not stand alone: that there is One Who 
proffers them aid, if they are but willing to accept it. 

Or, when a beloved one is called hence, and when 
the heart feels that it must break under the bereave¬ 
ment, what a consolation to reflect that He who gave 

154 


HAPPINESS IN BELIEVING 


155 


the dear friend has but called him home, and that the 
tender relationship is not severed, but only suspended 
for a while, to be resumed under happier conditions! 

Also, when the time comes that we must turn to the 
bourne whence no traveler returns, what comfort is 
derived from the confident expectation that refuge 
and welcome await us on the far-off shore: that when 
our earthly habitation is dissolved, a home not made 
by hands is prepared to receive us ! Compare the final 
end of the atheist with that of the true believer, and 
you will discover a contrast, in comparison with which 
every other contrast pales. 

I do not say that this thought could or should make 
one believe. But it certainly ought to bring even the 
atheist regret that life has in store for us nothing 
better than atheism offers. 

The reflections that must crowd upon declining 
years come to all thinking people sometimes through¬ 
out life, bringing sombre views to those who do not 
believe. Indeed, only cultivated thoughtlessness, 
feigned stoicism, or riotous living, can hide from any 
one the dread sequel to a life without God. 

The believer, on the other hand, may have his ups 
and downs, joys and trials, successes and defeats; he 
may even sometimes experience dire remorse because 
of transgression, or shame because of continued 
weakness. But he is never bereft of hope. There is 
still mercy, and some day or other he will seek it. 

The idealist who longs to see justice prevail and 
charity reign, and who can hardly hope to find the 
conditions he desires secured here, can look with con¬ 
fidence to another life where his most ardent longings 


156 


THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS 


will be more than satisfied. Men dream of peace, of 
holiness, of mercy, of a power that is both benign and 
great. Some have conjured up a millennium, during 
which evil will cease to be, and holiness encircle the 
earth. 

The believer is convinced that there is more than 
this in store for mankind. He holds that perfect hap¬ 
piness is a reality, that all the perfections and all the 
virtues have actual existence in a Being who is all¬ 
wise, all-holy, all-just, all-merciful; a Being, too, who 
is our Father and Friend. We do not accept the 
Deistic view that the Great First Cause created the 
earth and then left it to itself. We hold that the 
Creator is also Sustainer of the world, in which He 
is ceaselessly active. We hold that He has made 
Himself known to us through His creation, but still 
more clearly through revelation. We are convinced 
that He never forsakes us, though unfortunately 
we do sometimes forsake Him. Provided we will 
it, Pie is always with us. Hence, our happiness in 
believing. 


Printed in United States of America. 















































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 










LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 014 500 793 8 








































































































































































































































































































































































































































